Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
is somewhat perplexed by C. Line's insistence that it is entitled to a license under a statutory scheme that C. Line itself admits is void. See PL's Br. 7 n. 2 ("The City of Davenport attempts to regulate live nude dancing by requiring the owners of cabaret businesses to obtain licenses from the City of Davenport to operate their cabaret businesses offering live nude dancing under Davenport City Code chapter 5.16. Under the Mall Real Estate case, Davenport City Code chapter 5.16 is null and void.”). 24 . Ordinarily, once a party seeking a civil contempt finding meets the burden to proffer clear and convincing evidence that the alleged contemnors violated a court order, the burden shifts to the alleged contemnor to show an inability to comply. See Chicago Truck Drivers, 207 F.3d at 506  that they were unable to comply with the court
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that a contempt finding may be averted if the alleged contemnor establishes 1
B. recognizing that no warning to a contemnor is necessary when contempt is flagrant the aoc also argues that williamss use of the term bullshit justifies a separate contempt finding particularly in light of the warning provided by the initial contempt citation17 assuming without deciding that certain forms of contempt are so selfevident that they excuse a court from complying with the plain terms of the statute we disagree that the record before us presents such circumstances regarding the trial courts initial contempt finding we decline the aocs invitation to speculate that williamss inaudible comment to the court was contemptuous on its face williamss comment may have been a patent obscenity or an innocuous comment taken out of context by the court or anything in between further the trial courts failure to make findings deprives us of any other relevant cireumstances not apparent in the bare transcript such circumstances might include williamss body language gestures or even a general air of defiance while these circumstances when combined with williamss actual comment may well have supported a contempt citation we cannot uphold the contempt finding based on mere conjecture therefore we conclude that the first finding of contempt is insupportable on the facts present in the recordt18 whether williamss use of the term bullshit independently supports a contempt finding presents a closer question the record reveals that williams used that term to describe either the sentence the trial court had just imposed or the trial courts initial contempt citation more troubling however than the language itself is the apparent challenge to the courts authority and decorum see utah code ann  783211 defining contempt as inter alia dlisorderly contemptuous or insolent behavior toward the judge while holding the court tending to interrupt the due course of a trial or other judicial proceeding see also haton v tulsa 415 us 697 698 94 sct 1228 39 led2d 693 1974 a single isolated usage of street vernacular not directed at the judge or any officer of the court cannot constitutionally support the conviction of criminal contempt emphasis added
C. holding that the district court committed reversible error by imposing criminal sanctions in a civil proceeding which did not afford the contemnor the procedural protections the constitution requires for the imposition of criminal contempt sanctions
D. holding that because civil contempt is only to obtain compliance it must be used only where the contemnor has the present ability to comply with the court order and the trial court specifically finds that the contemnor has that ability
E. holding that incarceration for civil contempt cannot be imposed absent a finding by the trial court that the eontemnor has the present ability to purge himself of contempt
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.