Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
for Offer of Proof and Request for In Camera Inquiry and Combined Incorporated Memorandum of Law.” 8 . On appeal, Smith assigns as error the district court's decision to deny an offer of proof. We do not reach that issue because we reverse and remand with instructions for other reasons. 9 . We note that our decision in Smitherman was not available to the district court when it ruled on the motion at issue in this appeal. 10 . In applying an earlier version of the Iowa Rules of Professional Conduct, we recognized screens could be effective in mitigating imputed conflicts under certain circumstances. See Smitherman, 733 N.W.2d at 344, 348 (discussing the effective use of a "Chinese wall” by the public defender’s office); Doe v. Perry Cmty. Sch. Dist., 650 N.W.2d 594, 597-98 (Iowa 2002) . It should be noted, however, that under the
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that a disqualification order in a criminal case is not appealable
B. holding a motion is untimely if not filed after the party has knowledge to support disqualification and after the party suffers an adverse ruling
C. holding disqualification was appropriate but referencing several aba formal opinions where screening prevented the disqualification of an entire firm
D. holding that disqualification orders do not fall in the collateral order exception
E. holding that the disqualification order is an issue completely independent of the merits of the action
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.