Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
of those damages. See, e.g., Birkenbuel v. M.C.C. Construction Corp., 962 F.Supp. 1805, 1306 (D.Mont.1997) (stating that it is up to the defendant to present evidence that shows the damage computation exceeds $75,000 and finding without such evidence that “it is impossible to say whether the Complaint states a claim for the jurisdictional amount”); see also Garza v. Bettcher Industries, Inc., 752 F.Supp. 753, 763 (E.D.Mich.1990) (discussing examples of specific facts sufficient to establish the jurisdictional minimum including where “plaintiffs medical records revealed that he had undergone four separate surgical procedures for his injury”). Of course, the Defendant also can submit other evidence that may demonstrate the amount in controversy. See, e.g., Cohn, 281 F.3d at 840 . But Defendant cannot carry its burden by
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that when evaluating a settlement agreement the court is not to substitute its judgment for that of the parties nor is it to run consideration of the adequacy of the settlement into a trial or a rehearsal of the trial  rather the cjourts responsibility is to reach an intelligent and objective opinion of the ultimate success should the claims be litigated and to form an educated estimate of the complexity expense and likely duration of such litigation and all other factors relevant to a full and fair assessment of the wisdom of the proposed compromise
B. holding that a settlement letter is relevant evidence of the amount in controversy if it appears to reflect a reasonable estimate of the plaintiffs claim
C. holding that there must be sufficient competent evidence from which the trier of fact could estimate the amount of damages with a reasonable degree of certainty
D. holding that in the event it is not faeiaby apparent from the underlying complaint that the jurisdictional amount has been satisfied the court may rely on summary judgmenttype evidence to ascertain the amount in controversy
E. holding that the burden is on defendant as the party invoking removal jurisdiction to establish the existence of a sufficient amount in controversy
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.