Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
only a limited and specified time period to discover breaches and damages that should be obvious upon regular and diligent inspection is intuitively obvious. Had these two accrual provisions not been reconcilable by construing the scheme as a whole, however, subsection 108(4), as the more specific of the two, would nevertheless prevail. See § 24-205. In Regional Transportation District v. Voss, we acknowledged and applied a rule favoring the application of the longer, rather than the shorter, of two equally applicable statutes of limitation. 890 P.2d 663, 668 (Colo.1995). Much like analogous rules of choice applicable to statutes or contractual provisions in other contexts, this rule is a rule of last resort. See id.; cf. People v. Thoro Prods. Co., 70 P.3d 1188, 1198-99 (Colo.2003) ; Thomas F. Segalla, Couch on Insurance § 22:16
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. recognizing rule
B. holding rule of lenity in the penal context to be a rule of last resort
C. holding that the rule of lenity applies to sentencing guidelines
D. holding in sentencing guidelines context that the rule of lenity requires that we construe ambiguous terms in favor of the accused
E. recognizing that the rule of lenity applies only after courts exhaust all other evidence of congressional meaning
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.