Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
companies engaged in the same type of business as Cereva and Pirus. This court stated, “in view of [defendant’s] position at EMC and access to confidential and proprietary information relating to EMC’s product and marketing plans ... a restriction of one year is reasonable.” Id. This court further held that, ”[t]he market for open storage products in which EMC and Sun [the subsequent employer] compete is worldwide.” Id. The covenant not to compete in the Agreement at bar is likewise reasonable in geographical scope and length of time. III. Irreparable Harm Cereva has made a showing that it will suffer irreparable harm if an injunction fails to issue since it stands to lose customer good will which cannot be completely remedied through monetary damages. See Kroeger, supra, at 322 . IV. Balance of Harm This court is well aware
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that where a defendant acknowledged awareness of the consequences of his plea agreement counsels erroneous explanation of the consequences was not prejudicial
B. holding that an attorney is required to advise a defendant of the direct consequences of a plea and will not be found ineffective for failing to advise of collateral consequences of the plea
C. holding that to violate a specific intent statute the defendant must act with the purpose of violating the law
D. holding courts role is to ensure that agency took hard look at the environmental consequences and convincingly documented its fonsi
E. holding that the task of quantifying the consequences of violating a noncompetition clause is a particularly hard and elusive one
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.