Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
to which the claimant is entitled by reason of such judgment, and the Commissioner of Social Security may ... certify the amount of such fee for payment to such attorney out of, and not in addition to, the amount of such past-due benefits. 42 U.S.C. § 406(b)(1)(A). Although we have never addressed the precise issue of whether § 406(b)(1)(A) authorizes an award of attorney’s fees where the district court’s judgment remanding the case to the Commissioner does not explicitly mention attorney’s fees, we have noted that the congressional intent behind § 406(b) is, in part, “to encourage effective legal representation of claimants by insuring lawyers that they will receive reasonable fees directly through certification by the Secretary.” Dawson v. Finch, 425 F.2d 1192, 1195 (5th Cir.1970) . We have also noted that one of § 406(b)’s
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that a district court may not authorize an attorney to charge fees for representation in court when the commissioner has already authorized that attorney to charge fees for representation in administrative proceedings and declining to reach the secretarys contention that  406b does not allow a court to authorize attorneys fees unless it renders a judgment on the merits favorable to the claimant
B. holding that direct payment of attorney fees for representation before the court is to be made on the basis of the claim or application for benefits underlying the issues successfully appealed to this court
C. holding because an award of attorney fees is discretionary court may consider attorney fees in relation to the underlying equities in the case
D. holding that a district court may award attorneys fees while the merits are on appeal
E. holding that rule 11 does not authorize a district court to award appellate attorneys fees due to similar concerns
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.