Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
court to certify. This presents serious questions on.two separate fronts: our jurisdiction over this appeal under section 1292(b), and our general policy of declining to.consider arguments not made to the district court in the motion leading to the order.under appeal. Unlike the court, I cannot brush these concerns aside. Regarding our jurisdiction under section 1292(b), the Supreme Court has made clear that an appellate court can review “any issue fairly included within the certified order” because “[a]s the text of § 1292(b) indicates, appellate jurisdiction applies to the order certified to the court of appeals, and is not tied to the particular question formulated by the district court.” Yamaha Motor Corp., USA v. Calhoun, 516 U.S. 199, 205, 116 S.Ct. 619, 133 L.Ed.2d 578 (1996) . But the “court of appeals may not reach
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that where the issue of sanctions was not before the court of appeals when the appeal was filed the district court retained jurisdiction
B. holding that where the district court decided two issues in the certified order but identified only the damages issue as the controlling question of law the court of appeals could nonetheless address the other issue
C. holding that where it was clear that the court of appeals had limited the issues on resentencing to the one issue raised in the defendants first appeal the district court did not err in declining to consider other issues raised by the defendant on remand
D. holding that when a court of appeals has jurisdiction on interlocutory appeal the scope of appellate review is not limited to the precise question certified by the district court because the district courts order not the certified question is brought before the court
E. holding that law of the case acts as a bar only when the issue in question was actually considered and decided by the first court
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.