Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
were sentenced, the amended VWPA thus had the potential to increase the amount of restitution they would have to pay, from an amount set by the court by taking into account appellants’ financial circumstances, to full restitution. Accordingly, if the court determines that the VWPA should apply to this case, it must use the old version to avoid running afoul of the Ex Post Facto Clause. See United States v. Thompson, 113 F.3d 13, 15 n. 1 (2d Cir.1997) (dictum). Baggett, 125 F.3d at 1322. Accord, United States v. Bapack, 129 F.3d 1320, 1327 n. 13 (D.C.Cir.1997); Williams, 128 F.3d at 1241; United States v. Thompson, 113 F.3d 13, 15 n. 1 (2nd Cir.1997); United States v. Sclafani, 996 F.Supp. 400, 403-04 (D.N.J.1998). But see, United States v. Newman, 144 F.3d 531, 538 (7th Cir.1998) . We are persuaded by the analysis adopted in
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that the ex post facto clause prohibited retroactive application of the mvra because before the mvra became effective the victim and witness protection act authorized but did not compel district courts to order restitution
B. holding that retroactive application of mvra does not violate the ex post facto clause because restitution is not a criminal punishment
C. holding retroactive application of idra would violate the ex post facto clause
D. holding that revocation of medical license does not violate the ex post facto clause
E. holding ex post facto clause barred application of mvra to defendant whose criminal conduct occurred before the effective date of the statute
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.