Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
the government to release to Stichting Mayflower and Olson-Neihart the deposit of just compensation that the government deposited into an escrow account. Mayflower, however, has failed to submit an application for fees With this court or the district court as required by the statute. See 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d)(1)(B) (“A party seeking an award of fees ... shall within thirty days of final judgment in the action, submit to the court an application for fees and other expenses which shows that the party is a prevailing party ... the amount sought, including an itemized statement from any attorney or expert witness ... stating the actual time expended and the rate at which fees and other expenses were computed.”) (emphasis added); see also Myers v. Sullivan, 916 F.2d 659, 666 (11th Cir.1990) . Consequently, we do not address Mayflower's
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that issue exhaustion is mandatory even if not a statutory jurisdictional requirement
B. holding that regulatory requirements are not jurisdictional in nature
C. holding that this time requirement is mandatory and jurisdictional
D. recognizing that the statutory requirement that a claimant under eaja file timely application for fees is jurisdictional in nature
E. recognizing that issue exhaustion is a mandatory although not jurisdictional requirement
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.