Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
AEP that existed when Worth filed his complaint, and Worth nowhere disputes the district court’s finding, supported by an unchallenged agency affidavit, that HUD “will not renew the AEP that was in effect when MD-714 was operative.” Worth v. Jackson, No. 02-1576, slip op. at 11 (Jan. 5, 2004); Jackson Decl. at 2, Sept. 10, 2003 (stating that the AEP “will not be renewed or reissued”); see also United States v. Concentrated Phosphate Export Ass’n, 393 U.S. 199, 203-04, 89 S.Ct. 361, 21 L.Ed.2d 344 (1968) (finding in the mootness context that whether “the likelihood of further violations is sufficiently remote to make injunctive relief unnecessary ... is a matter for the trial judge”). That ends the matter. See Burke v. Barnes, 479 U.S. 361, 363-65, 107 S.Ct. 734, 93 L.Ed.2d 732 (1987) . To be sure, the Supreme Court has
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that defendants waived any challenge to the trial courts failure to hold an evidentiary hearing
B. holding that similar jurisdictional bar precluded review only of administration of statute not of challenge to statute itself
C. holding that noncompete provisions survived the expiration of an employment agreement where 1 the contract expressly provided that the provisions would continue to apply if the employee continued working and 2 the noncompete clause expressly stated it would continue to be in effect after the expiration or termination of employment
D. holding that amendment to the challenged statute mooted the claim when the state had expressed no intention to reenact the prior law
E. holding that a statutes expiration mooted any challenge to the statute
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.