Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
this date be used for determining his status on August 22, 1996, appears to be a disguised attempt to have this Court review the denial of Nodarse’s March 29, 1999 application by the Social Security Administration, which found that he was not a Cuban/Haitian entrant at that time or on August 22, 1996, because he had not been subject to deportation proceedings during that period. In order for this Court to hear an appeal of a final decision of the Commissioner of Social Security, an action must be brought in district court “within sixty days after the mailing of notice of [a final] decision or within such further time as the Commissioner of Social Security may allow.” 42 U.S.C. § 405(g); see also Bowen v. City of New York, 476 U.S. 467, 478-479, 106 S.Ct. 2022, 90 L.Ed.2d 462 (1986) ; Thompson v. Schweiker, 665 F.2d 936, 940 (9th
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that the ats does not waive the united states sovereign immunity
B. holding that the lanham act did not waive states sovereign immunity
C. holding that a state may waive its sovereign immunity
D. holding that in statute authorizing suits against united states limits time period in which such suits may be brought united states retains its sovereign immunity as to any suits brought outside of that time period therefore court does not have subject matter jurisdiction over suit against united states that is barred by statute of limitations
E. holding that although the requirement of filing a complaint within sixty days is a period of limitations and not jurisdictional it must be strictly construed as it is a condition on which the united states agreed to waive its sovereign immunity
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.