Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
Budget chose a federal forum for a declaration under Hawaii law. In balancing the relevant factors under such circumstances, “[t]his kind of forum shopping could be avoided by requiring district courts to inquire into the availability of state court proceedings to resolve all issues without federal intervention.” Id. Here, we cannot determine from the present record if the district court considered whether Budget could have filed an action for indemnification, or for a declaration under Hawaii law, either on the date this federal action was filed, or on the date the district court decided the merits of the novel state issues presented in the complaint. We are not certain that the district court “came up with the right answer” when it decided the merits. See Golden Eagle, 95 F.3d at 812 . Therefore, the district court’s failure to
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that sentencing error is harmless if the error did not affect the district courts selection of the sentence imposed
B. holding that the district courts error in exercising jurisdiction was harmless error because the court properly applied the relevant state law to the undisputed material facts and came up with the right answer
C. holding that even if the district court erred in sustaining the objection the error was harmless because the witness answered the question in the negative and the court did not strike his answer
D. recognizing that where material facts are undisputed the court only decides the application of relevant law
E. holding that the district courts error in calculating the amount of drugs at issue was harmless because the error had no impact on the defendants sentence
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.