Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
(5th Cir.1986) (same). 49 . In re Stonebridge Techs., Inc., 430 F.3d 260, 269 (5th Cir.2005) (per curiam) (“It is well-established in this circuit that letters of credit and the proceeds therefrom are not property of the debtor’s bankruptcy estate.”); see also In re Lockard, 884 F.2d 1171, 1178 (9th Cir.1989) (”[W]e conclude that the surety bond at issue in this case is not ‘property of the estate,’ within the meaning of 11 U.S.C. § 541.”). 50 . 516 F.3d 301 (5th Cir.2008). 51 . Id. at 312 (internal quotation marks omitted). 52 . In re Trinity Gas Corp. (Reorganized), 242 B.R. 344, 350 (Bankr.N.D.Tex.1999) ("[T]he obvious purpose of § 541(a)(7) is to include property and rights which are acq . See Celotex Corp. v. Edwards, 514 U.S. 300, 327, 115 S.Ct. 1493, 131 L.Ed.2d 403 (1995) ; In re Guild & Gallery Plus, Inc., 72 F.3d
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that a proceeding that by its nature could arise only in the context of a bankruptcy case is a core matter subject to the jurisdiction of the bankruptcy court
B. holding that a bankruptcy court could not use jurisdictional bootstraps to exercise jurisdiction that would not otherwise exist
C. holding that district court did not have jurisdiction over any claims that could not exist independently of a contract
D. holding under former jurisdictional limit that diversity jurisdiction did not exist where plaintiff sought damages of exactly 5000000
E. holding that bankruptcy court could not enjoin third party tort claims that would not affect estate
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.