Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
be deduced from the high percentage of Mexican-American students attending L.C. Smith and the failure of the freedom-of-choice plan, Plaintiffs contend. Most importantly, Plaintiffs claim that the ability grouping system of RISD is itself a vestige of past discrimination: the district court’s refusal to so find is clearly erroneous. Our review here of the district court’s conclusion that “RISD has been a unitary system for a sufficient period of time that all vestiges have been erased” is controlled by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 52, which provides that findings of fact “shall not be set aside unless clearly erroneous.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 52(a). United States v. Texas Education Agency, 647 F.2d 504, 506 (5th Cir.1981), cert. denied, 454 U.S. 1143, 102 S.Ct. 1002, 71 L.Ed.2d 295 (1982) ; Calhoun v. Cook, 522 F.2d 717 (5th Cir.1975)
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding bankruptcy courts finding of proximate causation not to be clearly erroneous
B. holding clearly erroneous the district courts finding that a 1970 plan had eliminated all vestiges of the previous dual system and created a unitary school
C. holding that the district courts finding of no discrimination under title vii was not clearly erroneous because the finding was supported by the record
D. holding that the district courts finding of no discrimination was not clearly erroneous because the finding was supported by the record
E. holding that the district courts key finding that petitioner is salvador mondacavega is not clearly erroneous
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.