Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
v. State ex rel. Baxley, 340 So.2d 1121 (Ala.Civ.App.1976)). A forfeiture proceeding that is not instituted promptly is ineffectual. Id. “The term ‘promptly’ has been construed to mean within a reasonable time in light of all the circumstances.” State v. $17,636.00 in United States Currency, 650 So.2d 900, 901 (Ala.Civ.App.1994). Whether a forfeiture action is “prompt” is governed by the facts and circumstances of that particular case. Lightfoot v. Floyd, 667 So.2d 56, 66 (Ala.1995); Adams v. State ex rel. Whetstone, 598 So.2d 967, 970 (Ala.Civ.App.1992). However, it is evident from cases addressing the issue of promptness in forfeiture actions that a short period of time between the seizure of property and the institution of forfeiture proceedings is favored. See Reach v. State, supra ; State v. Chesson, 948 So.2d 566
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that state did not promptly institute forfeiture proceedings given 14week delay between the seizure of the property and the filing of the states complaint
B. holding that a forfeiture proceeding instituted four weeks after seizure met the promptness requirement of the statute
C. holding that the district court abused its discretion in denying leave to amend after a delay of eight months
D. holding that forfeiture proceedings instituted eight months after the seizure of property failed to meet the promptness requirement
E. holding that forfeiture proceeding instituted more than seven months after property was seized did not meet the promptness requirement of  202  93c
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.