Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
further provides that a violation notice must (1) Be in writing; (2) Include a statement of the violation or violations and why the notice is being issued; (3) Inform the offender of the right to appeal; (4) Include a statement that a determination of violation shall be final unless appealed in accordance with this chapter; and (5) Include a statement of penalties provided for the violation(s). Id. Meloche’s confrontation with the O’Neills lacked all the elements required by LMCO §§ 91.073(A)-(B) and 91.074(D) — sections of an ordinance that Meloche claims he created — and was not reasonably calculated to apprise the O’Neills of the allegations against them or of the procedures available to present their objections. See United States v. Baker, 807 F.2d 1315, 1323-24 (6th Cir.1986) ; cf. Herrada v. City of Detroit, 275 F.3d 553,
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that procedures whereby amount of restitution were determined without a hearing were constitutionally defective
B. holding that the worker adjustment and retraining notification act imposes a notice requirement in case of a mass layoff thereby imposing on an employer the obligation to provide either statutory notice or sixty days back pay in lieu of notice to relevant employees
C. holding the statutory notification requirement unenforceable
D. holding that notice was not constitutionally adequate where the clearcut statutory procedures for notification were not followed
E. holding that search warrant was constitutionally defective because it did not require notice
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.