Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
does not argue that the Court should determine an award of compensatory education. Instead, Ms. Lopez requests only “that this Court remand this case to the Office of Dispute Resolution so that the hearing officer may award compensatory education.” Pl.’s Mem. at 5. The District “does not object to a remand.” Def.’s Mem. at 3; see id. at 9; see also Pl.’s Reply at 1 (noting the “District’s acquiescence to Ms. Lopez’s proposed remand”). The parties thus agree that remand is appropriate in this case. The D.C. Circuit has held that a district court may remand for the purposes of considering an award of compensatory education following a finding that a child was denied a FAPE. See Reid, 401 F.3d at 526; see also Branham ex rel. Branham v. Gov’t of D.C., 427 F.3d 7, 13 (D.C.Cir.2005) . District courts in this circuit fre quently
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that reid permits the district court either to take supplemental evidence or to return the case to the hearing officer
B. recognizing that a lower court cannot change the law of the case as decided by the highest court hearing a case
C. holding a district courts application of supplemental jurisdiction is a doctrine of discretion not of plaintiffs right
D. holding that the doctrine of incorporation by reference permits the court to consider documents on a motion to dismiss that are crucial or essential to the plaintiffs claims
E. holding that a district court retained supplemental jurisdiction over the plaintiffs statelaw claims after dismissing the plaintiffs federal claims and did not abuse its discretion by declining to remand the case to state court
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.