Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
Court never explicitly addressed the Appellants’ immunity claims, we must decide whether we have interlocutory jurisdiction to review an implied denial of those claims. We join the other Circuit Courts of Appeals that have addressed this issue and hold that we do. See Lowe v. Town of Fairland, 143 F.3d 1378, 1380 (10th Cir.1998); Zayas-Green v. Casaine, 906 F.2d 18, 23 (1st Cir.1990); Musso v. Hourigan, 836 F.2d 736, 741 (2d Cir.1988); Craft v. Wipf, 810 F.2d 170, 173 (8th Cir.1987); Helton v. Clements, 787 F.2d 1016, 1017 (5th Cir.1986) (per curiam); see also Nelson v. Jashurek, 109 F.3d 142, 146-147 (3d Cir.1997) (suggesting interlocutory jurisdiction might exist where denial of qualified immunity claim can be inferred); Ryan v. Burlington County, 860 F.2d 1199, 1203 (3d Cir.1988) . Allowing this case to proceed to trial
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding the order is only reviewable if actually considered by the district court
B. holding that a district courts order is final and immediately reviewable under mitchell if the appellants properly raised a claim of qualified immunity in the district court
C. holding that a denial of a claim of qualified immunity is an appealable final decision
D. holding district courts order postponing ruling on defendants qualified immunity defense was immediately appealable
E. holding that the issue of whether the attorney general was entitled to qualified immunity is immediately appealable under the collateral order doctrine
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.