Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
Supreme Court determined that the "no set of facts" language set forth in Conley, 355 U.S. at 45, 78 S.Ct. 99, "has earned its retirement,” Bell Atl. Corp., 127 S.Ct. at 1969. 23 . The decision in Bannum was based upon RCFC 56.1, which was abrogated and replaced by RCFC 52.1. RCFC 52.1, however, was designed to incorporate the decision in Bannum. See RCFC 52.1, Rules Committee Note (June 20, 2006). 24 . As defendant notes, plaintiff does not cite 37 U.S.C. § 204 in his complaint. See Def.’s Mot. 6 n. 2. However, because 37 U.S.C. § 204 is the only money-mandating statute that could provide the basis for the relief sought by plaintiff, the court presumes that plaintiff's claim for back pay is premised on 37 U.S.C. § 204. See Martinez v. United States, 333 F.3d 1295, 1315 (Fed.Cir. 2003) ; see also Metz v. United States, 466 F.3d 991,
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that 28 usc  2636c did not modify the filing requirement in 19 usc  1516aa2a
B. holding that 10 usc  1201 is a moneymandating statute
C. holding that visa revocations pursuant to 8 usc  1155 are not made unreviewable by either 8 usc  1252a2bii or 5 usc  701a2
D. holding that a state is not a person under 42 usc  1983
E. holding that 37 usc  204 is moneymandating
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.