Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
made some positive efforts in collecting rebates which should be commended. At this juncture, the most pertinent issue is how best to expend Federal Defendants’ limited resources to accomplish the purpose of the Court’s decrees-the enforcement of the regulatory duties. This suit comes at a time of frugal federal budgets and limited resources for federal officials. Doubtless the conservation of these resources will assist them in fulfilling their regulatory duties generally and more specifically the ones at issue in this suit. Finally, if for no other reason, compensatory sanctions are inappropriate because competent proof of the amount of losses and attorney fees have not been submitted to the Court. See O’Connor v. Midwest Pipe Fabrications, Inc., 972 F.2d 1204, 1211 (10th Cir.1992) ; Gen. Signal Corp. v. Donallco, Inc., 787 F.2d
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that monetary sanction was not supportable as a compensatory civil contempt sanction because there was no proof of the amount of loss
B. recognizing that the stated purposes of a contempt sanction alone cannot be determinative
C. holding that 25 surcharge added to fees that otherwise would be compensatory was a criminal contempt sanction even though it was payable to the adverse party and not to the court reversing order for sanctions because court did not follow procedural requirements for criminal contempt
D. holding that a trustee can recover damages in the form of costs and attorneys fees under section 105a as a sanction for ordinary civil contempt
E. holding that a postjudgment contempt sanction for refusal to obey orders whether it is characterized as a civil or a criminal sanction is immediately appealable as a final order under  1291
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.