Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
the Constitution or federal law, it should “afford a reasonable opportunity for the legislature to meet constitutional requirements by adopting a substitute measure rather than for the federal court to devise ... its own plan.” Wise v. Lipscomb, 437 U.S. 535, 540, 98 S.Ct. 2493, 57 L.Ed.2d 411 (1978). This case presents an exceptional circumstance, however: the General Assembly enacted the 2016 Plan after another panel of this Court invalidated the 2011 Plan as a racial gerrymander. Harris, 159 F.Supp.3d at 627. When a court finds a remedial districting plan also violates the Constitution, courts generally do not afford a legislature a second “bite-at-the-apple” to enact a constitutionally compliant plan. See Chapman v. Meier, 420 U.S. 1, 27, 95 S.Ct. 751, 42 L.Ed.2d 766 (1975) ; Reynolds, 377 U.S. at 586, 84 S.Ct. 1362
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that when a district court fails to provide reasons for imposing special conditions and the defendant fails to object we review for plain error
B. holding that if the defendant fails to file a motion in the trial court to withdraw his plea he cannot attack it for the first time on appeal
C. holding that if a state fails to enact a constitutionally acceptable remedial districting plan the responsibility falls on the district court
D. holding that plain error review applies when a party fails to raise a claim before the district court
E. holding that if the government fails to object to the presentence report the district courts reliance on the report is reviewed for plain error
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.