Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
that: All nonconforming outdoor advertising signs shall be discontinued or made conforming (amortized) within five and one-half (5lA) years from the effective date of this ordinance ([October 23, 1983]), unless explicitly prohibited by State Statute. (Emphasis added). 8 . The sixteen signs located along federal highway systems, while exempt from the removal requirement, still remained “nonconforming uses” subject to the ordinance’s other restrictions, such as the prohibitions on reconstructing damaged nonconforming signs, moving existing nonconforming signs to new locations on their lots, or building more such signs along the federal highway systems. Compare National Advertising Co. v. Bradshaw, 48 N.C.App. 10, 268 S.E.2d 816, appeal dismissed, 301 N.C. 400, 273 S.E.2d 446 (1980) . 9 . A facial takings attack is a claim that
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that more than notice to a defendant is required
B. holding that state court could regulate the practice of law in federal courts located in the state
C. holding illegal nationals reconstruction of sign deemed nonconforming under state statute and located along federal highway system where sign was more than 50 percent destroyed by wind
D. holding plaintiff entitled to replace ment value of gold leaf professional sign located in the window of his leased law office when defendants intentionally destroyed it
E. holding that the validity of releases under the federal employers liability act was a question to be determined by federal rather than state law
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.