Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.” Fed.Bankr.R. 7056(c); Fed. R.Civ.P. 56(c); Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 247, 106 S.Ct. 2505, 91 L.Ed.2d 202 (1986). The summary judgment procedure is appropriate in an action to review the record of an administrative agency because the reviewing court is generally limited to determining matters of law, i.e. sufficiency of record, statutory authority of agency, etc., and if there is no material issue of fact and only a question of law, summary judgment is appropriate. 6-Pt. 2 Moore’s Federal Practice ¶56.17[3], 56-362 — 56-364 (2d ed. 1993) (citing Milton v. Harris, 616 F.2d 968 (7th Cir.1980) ). A. The Negotiated Rates Act of 1993 On
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that a probable cause determination is appropriate for summary judgment where there are no genuine issues of material fact and no credibility issues
B. holding that summary judgment is not appropriate if there is a genuine dispute about a material fact
C. holding that when a contract is ambiguous and the parties suggest different interpretations summary judgment is inappropriate because an issue of fact exists
D. holding that summary judgment is appropriate when no issue of material fact exists and the court is reviewing administrative record for sufficiency of evidence
E. holding that when there are no genuine issues of material fact summary judgment is appropriate
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.