Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
duration within which modification is possible. Accordingly, the policy that underlies Lanning also supports our reading of § 1325(b)(1)(B). III. Conclusion In summary, we hold that a bankruptcy court may confirm a Chapter 13 plan under 11 U.S.C. § 1325(b)(1)(B) only if the plan’s duration is at least as long as the applicable commitment period provided by § 1325(b)(4). Accordingly, we overrule Kagenveama’s holding regarding the meaning of “applicable commitment period” and affirm the bankruptcy court’s ruling. The mandate shall issue forthwith. AFFIRMED. 1 . The Trustee has never questioned Debtors' good faith in proposing the plan. See 11 U.S.C. § 1325(a)(3) (setting forth requirement of the debtors’ good faith). 2 . See Miller v. Gammie, 335 F.3d 889, 900 (9th Cir.2003) (en banc) . 3 . Debtors do not dispute the increase from
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that a threejudge panel may depart from circuit precedent that has not been expressly overruled when an intervening en banc or supreme court decision has undercut the theory or reasoning underlying the prior circuit precedent in such a way that the cases are clearly irreconcilable
B. holding that a three judge panel is free to reexamine the holding of a prior panel when the supreme court has undercut the theory or reasoning underlying the prior circuit precedent in such a way that the cases are clearly irreconcilable
C. holding that a three judge panel is not bound by prior circuit precedent if an intervening decision of a higher authority undercuts the theory or reasoning underlying the prior circuit precedent in such a way that the cases are clearly irreconcilable
D. holding that where the relevant court of last resort has undercut the theory or reasoning underlying the prior circuit precedent in such a way that the cases are clearly irreconcilable then a threejudge panel of this court and district courts should consider themselves bound by the intervening higher authority and reject the prior opinion of this court as having been effectively overruled
E. holding a threejudge panel may not reexamine normally controlling circuit precedent in the face of an intervening united states supreme court decision unless the reasoning or theory of our prior circuit authority is clearly irreconcilable with the reasoning or theory of intervening higher authority
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.