With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". Court finds that Plaintiff has failed to “nudge [its RICO continuity] claim[] across the line from conceivable to plausible.” As did Twombly, this case involves a federal statute under which there is significant risk, absent careful review at the motion-to-dismiss stage of proceedings, of plaintiffs transforming garden-variety commercial disputes into something significantly more burdensome to the opposing party simply by invoking certain labels in a complaint. Despite Plaintiffs general allegations that there was a continuous and ongoing pattern of rack raise a reasonable expectation that discovery will reveal evidence of the “ ‘long-term criminal conduct’ that RICO is intended to redress.” Disandro-Smith & Assocs., P.C. v. Edron Copier Serv., Inc., 722 F.Supp. 912, 916 (D.R.I.1989) (<HOLDING>). The allegations in the complaint do not

A: holding that three sales of used copy machines as new within approximately two years did not meet the continuity element
B: holding that exercising general jurisdiction over defendant was improper where its actual sales in florida were a small percentage of the total sales and therefore these sales were de minimis 
C: holding in addition that offense of obstructing a law enforcement officer did not meet therein element of burglary
D: holding that the fact that defendants sales in forum were less than 5 percent of its total sales volume was irrelevant so long as its sales were part of a regular course of dealing and were not isolated or exceptional events
A.