Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
States v. Harmon, 742 F.3d 451, 459 (10th Cir.2014) (discussing Giglio rule). 2 . The defendants’ summary judgment briefs did contain some passing references to immunity. They argued that they did not lose the absolute immunity connected with the fulfillment of their duties under Giglio merely because third parties disseminated the Giglio materials to the police chiefs, the newspaper, and the website. The district court never reached this argument, because it found sufficient evidence that it was the defendants themselves who disseminated the materials to the police chiefs and the newspaper. We lack appellate jurisdiction to resolve a dispute concerning this factual finding in a qualified immunity appeal. See Johnson v. Jones, 515 U.S. 304, 313, 115 S.Ct. 2151, 132 L.Ed.2d 238 (1995) . To the extent we may reach factual issues in
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that there was a genuine issue of material fact precluding summary judgment
B. holding that the existence of genuine issues of material facts render not appealable a pretrial denial of summary judgment on the issue of qualified immunity
C. holding that an eeoc reasonable cause determination letter did not constitute evidence precluding summary judgment when the other evidence was insufficient to create a genuine issue of material fact
D. holding that a district court judgment is not a final judgment appealable by the defendant unless it includes the final adjudication and the final sentence
E. holding district courts determination that summary judgment record raised genuine issue of fact concerning petitioners involvement in unconstitutional conduct did not constitute appealable final decision
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.