With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". Assuming, without in any way deciding, that N.C.G.S. § 14-202.1(a) is a divisible statute, additional questions of North Carolina law must be resolved before defendant’s eligibility to seek the termination of his obligation to continue to register as a sex offender can be determined. Although this Court has held that proof that a touching occurred is not necessary for a finding of guilt for purposes of N.C.G.S. § 14-202.1(a) (1), see State v. Hartness, 326 N.C. 561, 567, 391 S.E.2d 177, 180 (stating that N.C.G.S. § 14-202.1(a)(l) does not require “the State [to] prove that a touching occurred”), and while the Court of Appeals has held that proof of a touching is not necessary for a finding of guilt under N.C.G.S. § 14-202.1(a)(2), see Hammett, 182 N.C. App. at 323, 642 S.E.2d at 459 (<HOLDING>); State v. Every, 157 N.C. App. 200, 207, 578

A: holding that the state felony offense of taking indecent liberties with a child categorically constituted a crime of violence for purposes of the career offender sentencing guidelines
B: holding that taking indecent liberties with a child is not a lesser included offense of statutory rape given the differing age elements
C: holding that an indictment like that returned against defendant in this case did not suffice to permit a court to determine for purposes of the modified categorical approach that the defendant was convicted of the offense made punishable by ncgs  142021a2
D: holding that the defendant did not need to have physically touched the victim in order to be convicted of taking indecent liberties with a child in violation of ncgs  142021a2
D.