Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
as follows: 980.07 Periodic examination; report. (1) If a person has been committed under s. 980.06 and has not been discharged under s. 980.09, the department shall conduct an examination of his or her mental condition within 6 months after an initial commitment under s. 980.06 and again thereafter at least once each 12 months for the purpose of determining whether the person has made sufficient progress for the court to consider whether the person should he placed on supervised release or discharged. At the time of a reexamination under this section, the person who has been committed may retain or seek to have the court appoint an examiner as provided under s. 980.03 (4). See State ex rel. Marberry v. Macht, 2003 WI 79, ¶ 15, 262 Wis. 2d 720, 665 N.W.2d 155 (Sykes, J., lead opinion) . 12 Wisconsin Stat. § 980.07(2) provides as
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding inter alia that wis stat  980071 allows a ch 980 committee to retain an independent examiner
B. holding that time limits in wis stat  980071 are mandatory
C. holding that the time limits in the equal access to justice act are jurisdictional
D. holding that time limits in title vii are not jurisdictional but are instead like statutes of limitations
E. holding that a requesting party may immediately bring an enforcement action if an open records law request is denied and that such actions are exempt from the notice provisions of wis stat  893801
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.