Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
any event, the Government’s failures occurred after plaintiff failed to act with reasonable diligence to preserve her rights. This is an important distinction. Had plaintiff acted within a reasonable time period to exhaust her administrative remedies, the Government’s failure to respond might have caused a different outcome here. However, that is not the case at bar and I need not decide that question. I am sympathetic to the fact that plaintiff here acted (or failed to act, as it were) based on the representations of her former employers and her current counsel. Nevertheless, I cannot dispense freely with the 45-day time limit, which the Supreme Court has held must be strictly construed. Baldwin County Welcome Center v. Brown, 466 U.S. 147, 152, 104 S.Ct. 1723, 80 L.Ed.2d 196 (1994) . Accordingly, I hold as a matter of law that
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that remand was necessary when the alj failed to adhere to  4041527d2s procedural requirements and noting that a de minimis violation of those procedural requirements may qualify as harmless error
B. holding that the requirements of title iii apply and must be satisfied
C. holding that requirements of rule 683 are mandatory and must be strictly followed
D. holding that nonmonetary claims are not subject to these requirements
E. holding that courts must strictly adhere to title viis procedural requirements and stating that these requirements are not to be disregarded by courts out of a vague sympathy for particular litigants
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.