Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
United States ex rel. Sherman v. Carter, 353 U.S. 210, 216, 77 S.Ct. 793, 1 L.Ed.2d 776 (1957) (internal quotations and citation omitted). It is well established that a pay-when-paid clause in the circumstances at bar does not foreclose a subcontractor’s right to bring suit for payment under the Miller Act against a general contractor and its surety. See United States ex rel. Walton Tech., Inc. v. Weststar Eng’g, Inc., 290 F.3d 1199, 1209 (9th Cir.2002) (“A subcontractor that has performed as agreed need not await the Government’s payment of the contractor before initiating an action under the Miller Act against the contractor or the surety.”); see also United States ex rel. T.M.S. Mech. Contractors, Inc. v. Millers Mut. Fire Ins. Co. of Tex., 942 F.2d 946, 949 n. 6 (5th Cir.1991) ; United States ex rel. McKenney’s, Inc. v.
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that the protection of the double jeopardy clause does not preclude a defendant from being charged under a statute  defining as the criminal offense a discrete act after a prior conviction or acquittal of a distinguishable discrete act that is a separate violation of the statute
B. holding that a mandatory arbitration clause does not preclude litigating a federal statutory claim
C. holding that the absence of a formal injunction does not preclude the plaintiff from recovering costs and attorney fees under mcl 152714
D. holding that a paywhenpaid clause does not preclude a subcontractor from recovering under the miller act
E. holding that exemption under the ada does not preclude liability under the rehabilitation act
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.