Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
32(c), formerly 32(a). The Court concluded that it made “no sense to impute to Congress an intent that a defendant have the right to comment on the appropriateness of a sua sponte departure but not the right to be notified that the court is contemplating such a ruling.” Burns, 501 U.S. at 135-36, 111 S.Ct. 2182 (emphasis in original). Although Burns itself dealt with the need for notice regarding potential upward departures, Townsend notes that some lower courts have extended its reasoning to adjustments, see United States v. Jackson, 32 F.3d 1101 (7th Cir.1994); United States v. Brady, 928 F.2d 844 (9th Cir.1991), abrogated on other grounds, Nichols v. United States, 511 U.S. 738, 114 S.Ct. 1921, 128 L.Ed.2d 745 (1994); but see United States v. Canada, 960 F.2d 263 (1st Cir.1992) ; United States v. Willis, 997 F.2d 407 (8th
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that more stringent requirements of  1823e do not apply retroactively
B. holding that the notice requirements of section 101101 do not apply to employees because they are not governmental units
C. holding that more than notice to a defendant is required
D. holding that burns notice requirements did not apply to adjustments which are more predictable than departures
E. holding that the federal register notice requirements do not apply to federal criminal statutes
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.