Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
we cannot say that § 1396r-5(e)(2)(C) has a “plain meaning” that mandates a resource-first approach. The MCCA does not set out a definition of income as that term is used in subsection (e)(2)(c). Further, unlike the district court, we do not read subsections (b), (d)(e) and'(f) as imparting a plain meaning that prohibits the transfer of income pre-eligibility, such that transferred income cannot be included in the community spouse’s income as that term is used in subsection (e)(2)(C). Instead, we believe that subsection (e)(2)(C)’s reference to “income” is ambiguous at best. Indeed, the differing views of the various courts and agencies that have interpreted subsection (e)(2)(C) provide a strong indication that the subsection is ambiguous. Compare, e.g., Gruber, 647 N.E.2d at 861 , and Kimnach, 645 N.E.2d at 825 (same), with
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that mcca mandates resourcefirst ap proach in implementing subsection e2c
B. holding that to sustain a conviction under subsection 1a of oregons seconddegree assault statute the state needs to prove only that defendant was aware of the assaultive nature of his conduct and that his conduct in fact caused the victim serious physical injury
C. holding that subsection 13la does not apply if the information is not of a personal nature
D. holding that a court should be more hesitant in accepting ab2 suit which contains significant individual issues than it would under subsection 23b3
E. holding that  1226e does not purport to foreclose challenges to  1226c itself as opposed to decisions implementing that subsection
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.