Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
waived his opportunity to challenge the district court’s ERISA ruling when he failed to contest it in his initial appeal. See Kesselring v. F/T Arctic Hero, 95 F.3d 23, 24 (9th Cir. 1996) (per curiam) (“Since appellant failed to raise this issue in its first appeal, it is waived.”). We previously vacated and remanded for the district court to reconsider the unrelated issue of whether Schoenfeld’s debt was dischargeable under the Bankruptcy Code, and did not disturb the district court’s order as it pertained to Schoen-feld’s violations of ERISA. In addition, contrary to Schoenfeld’s contention, the satisfaction of his debt did not moot the injunctive relief designed to protect against future violations of ERISA. See F.T.C. v. Affordable Media, 179 F.3d 1228, 1238 (9th Cir. 1999) ; S.E.C. v. Koracorp Indus., Inc., 575 F.2d
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. recognizing mootness if it is absolutely clear the allegedly wrongful behavior could not reasonably be expected to recur citation omitted
B. holding that injunctive relief is not moot based on voluntary cessation unless the defendant shows that it is absolutely clear his wrongful activities cannot reasonably be expected to recur
C. holding that dismissal is inappropriate unless it is clear that no relief could be granted under any set of facts that could be proved consistent with the allegations
D. holding that it is not
E. holding that an error cannot be plain unless it is clear under current law quotation omitted
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.