Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
sent the notices to his last known address and to the prison where he was incarcerated, that the prison received the notice and had a policy and procedure in place for distribution of mail to inmates, and that the Government published notice in USA Today. Rather, Tidwell argues for the first time on appeal that the notice the Government provided was insufficient because the Government could have assured that the Notice of Seizure was directly handed to him or sent to his attorney, but it failed to do so. The argument that the Government must provide a prisoner with actual notice was squarely rejected by the Supreme Court in Dusenbery. Dusenbery, 534 U.S. at 171, 122 S.Ct. 694 (“[O]ur cases have never required actual notice.”); see One Toshiba Color Television, 213 F.3d at 155 . Furthermore, Tidwell’s argument that the
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that where the recipient is a federal prisoner the government is required to provide him with actual notice of a deprivation
B. holding that while the government was required to prove that the defendants phone call crossed a state line  the government did not need to prove that the defendant knew of the interstate nexus
C. holding that the government need not prove actual notice to the prisoner
D. holding that where the governmental unit filed a verified special denial that it received timely actual notice the plaintiff had the burden to prove and secure a finding on actual notice at trial
E. holding that notice of administrative forfeiture sent to prisoner did not require actual notice to the property owner only notice reasonably calculated to apprise a party of the pendency of the action
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.