Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
procedure.” Id. (Emphasis added). Similarly, the court in Wittenberg v. Winston-Salem/Forsyth County Board of Education, No. 1:05 CV 818, 2006 WL 2568937, at *5, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 63812, at *17 (M.D.N.C. Sept. 1, 2006), held that the prior version of the stay-put provision “should be read to mandate an agreement after a decision of a hearing officer in a due process hearing conducted by the SEA only if there is no further appeal to a state review official.” (Emphasis added). The Wittenberg court premised its holding on its finding that “the statute on which the regulation is based does not contemplate a situation in which a hearing conducted by the state will be appealed to a state review official.” Id.; see also CJN v. Minneapolis Pub. Schs., 323 F.3d 630, 642 (8th Cir.2003) . Conversely, the court in Benjamin v. Greater
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that district court did not abuse its discretion in striking fact statements that did not comply with the local rules
B. holding that the district court did not err when it found that the stayput provision did not apply to a firsttier due process hearing conducted by a local school district
C. holding that district court did not err in concluding after an evidentiary hearing that the immunity agreement between defendant and the government did not extend to the charge being prosecuted
D. holding that the district court did not err in determining that inadvertent disclosure did not result in waiver
E. holding that trial court did not err
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.