Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
HRS § 386-88 supersedes HRS § 91-14 and removes the circuit court from the appellate process with regard to the proceedings brought under HRS ch. 386”. Id. In DeVictoria v. H & K Contractors, 56 Haw. 552, 545 P.2d 692 (1976), the supreme court confirmed HRS § 91-14(b) provides that “proceedings for review shall be instituted in the circuit court ... except where a statute provides for a direct appeal to the supreme court." DeVictoria, 56 Haw. at 556 n. 3, 545 P.2d at 697, n. 3 (emphasis added). Therefore, under Ras and DeVictoria, HRS chapter 91 applies except with respect to the circuit court provision. Thus, HRS § 91-14 concerning the standard of review on appeal governs in the present case. See Ostrowski v. Wasa Elec. Servs., Inc., 87 Hawai'i 492, 495, 960 P.2d 162, 165 (App.1998) ; Williams v. Kleenco, 2 Haw.App. 219, 219, 629
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that an appellate court can review a district courts decision to remand when that decision rests upon a ground not authorized by statute
B. holding that appellate review in a first amendment case of a lower courts finding concerning the motivation behind a decision to terminate a faculty member is governed by the clearly erroneous standard
C. holding that the standard of review for the denial of rule 11 sanctions is governed by the law of the regional circuit
D. holding that appellate review of the boards decision is governed by hrs  9114
E. holding that the standard of review for the denial of a motion for reconsideration is governed by the law of the regional circuit
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.