Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
Cir.2009) (quoting Schlaifer Nance, 194 F.3d at 333). Because “ ‘the trial court [imposing sanctions] may act as accuser, fact finder and sentencing judge’ ” all in one, Schlaifer Nance, 194 F.3d at 334(quoting Mackler Prods., Inc. v. Cohen, 146 F.3d 126, 128 (2d Cir.1998)), our review of such an order is “ ‘more exacting than under the ordinary abuse-of-discretion standard.’ ” Wolters Kluwer, 564 F.3d at 113-14 (quoting Perez v. Danbury Hosp., 347 F.3d 419, 423 (2d Cir.2003)). “In order to impose sanctions pursuant to its inherent power, a district court must find that: (1) the challenged claim was without a colorable basis and (2) the claim was brought in bad faith, i.e., motivated by improper purposes such as harassment or delay.” Schlaifer Nance, 194 F.3d at 336; see also id. at 337 (internal citations omitted). Although both
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding it appropriate to grant a motion to dismiss a discrimination claim where claim is not supported by factual allegations
B. holding that a claim is entirely without color when it lacks any legal or factual basis conversely a claim is colorable when it has some legal and factual support considered in light of the reasonable beliefs of the individual making the claim
C. holding a complaint sufficiently raises a claim even if it points to no legal theory or even if it points to the wrong legal theory as a basis for that claim
D. holding that failure to develop a legal argument supporting a claim results in waiver of the claim
E. holding that if the alleged retaliatory action occurs before the initial eeoc charge is filed a plaintiff must exhaust his administrative remedies as to that claim by including factual information in the charge that discloses the factual basis for the retaliation claim
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.