Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
that if the determination of damages is “mechanical and uneontroversial,” immediate appeal is allowed). In the instant case, the district court entered its sanctions order on March 14, 1996, but did not quantify the amount of the sanctions. On April 19, 1996, the district court entered a judgment granting SLU’s summary judgment motion, thus triggering the 30-day period for filing the notice of appeal on the merits of her case. Fed. R.App. P. 4(a)(1); Fed.R.Civ.P. 58. Hill filed her notice of appeal on May 17, 1996, from both the sanctions order and the grant of summary judgment. The district court had not yet reduced the sanctions to a sum certain, however, and thus, we hold that the sanctions order was not yet final. Accord Discon, Inc. v. NYNEX Corp., 4 F.3d 130, 132 (2d Cir.1993) . On August 27, 1996, the court ordered payment
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding sanctions order was too general to support award
B. holding that trial court erred by imposing sanctions against attorney without notice and hearing but error was cured by attorneys subsequent challenge to sanctions
C. holding that while sanctions order did not meet specificity requirement of section 10005 trial courts findings of fact and conclusions of law supplied necessary particulars and thus deficient sanctions order did not constitute reversible error
D. holding that under fed r bankrproc 8002a an appeal of a bankrupt court order finding that sanctions are warranted was not premature where the order fixing the amount of sanctions and ordering payment was subsequently entered more than thirty days later
E. holding sanctions order not final where the amount of sanctions had not yet been determined
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.