Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
and resources it expended in 2013.” Applying the well-known principle of “the time value of money” means that spending money on other priorities in 2013 — and reaping the benefits of those investments between 2013 and 2015 — would financially benefit Kawa even if it eventually expends money in 2015 to comply with the mandate. Construing Kawa’s complaint liberally, I understand Kawa to have easily alleged facts sufficient to demonstrate Article III standing in its complaint. Of course, my view on the issue of standing has nothing to do with the merits of Kawa’s complaint challenging the employer mandate’s delayed enforcement under the APA. In fact, any discussion of the merits here would be inappropriate. See, e.g., Mulhall v. UNITE HERE Local 855, 618 F.3d 1279, 1294 (11th Cir.2010) . However, I would hold that Kawa has alleged
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that district court appropriately dismissed suit for lack of subject matter jurisdiction when the case was moot
B. holding that courts lack jurisdiction to address merits of a claim where party raising the claim is found to lack standing to maintain suit
C. holding that the district court was not divested of subject matter jurisdiction upon the dismissal of the plaintiffs federal claims
D. holding that the fourth circuit has jurisdiction to review a district courts sua sponte remand order even when that remand order is styled as a remand for lack of subject matter jurisdiction if the order was in fact based on the procedural insufficiency of the notice of removal
E. holding after we found standing following a district courts dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction that the merits will be for the district court to decide on remand
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.