Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
the interception of communications “within the territorial jurisdiction of the court in which the judge is sitting.” I concur in the result reached by the majority, however, because, under the circumstances of this case, suppression of the evidence is not mandated by 18 U.S.C. § 2515. Under the majority’s interpretation of the statute any federal district court, circuit court of appeals or appropriate state court may authorize a wiretap any place in the country. A judge in the Southern District of New York may now authorize a tap on a phone in Chippewa Falls, Wisconsin, Nome, Alaska or Prescott, Arizona, even if no calls are ever placed to the east coast, as long as the listening post is set up in Manhattan. See, e.g., United States v. Burford, 755 F.Supp. 607, 609-11 (S.D.N.Y.1991) . Law enforcement officials are now able to
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that the southern district of new york had significant transportation advantages over the southern district of indiana particularly in terms of daily flights to and from the forum
B. holding the new york state wiretap statute controlling on this issue
C. holding that the magistrate judge did not abuse her discretion in considering the prevailing hourly rates in the southern district of new york when awarding attorneys fees
D. holding that judge in southern district of new york could authorize wiretap in maryland
E. holding that venue was not proper in the southern district of new york where the plaintiff resided because the allegedly erroneous advice to file a case in new york that could result in a finding of civil contempt against the plaintiff originated from the defendants office in california
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.