Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
to lift the restitution lien. First, the Mandatory Victims Restitution Act (“MVRA”) requires full, not partial, restitution. 18 U.S.C. § 3663A, 3771(a)(6); United States v. Grice, 319 F.3d 1174, 1177 (9th Cir.2003) (per cu-riam). The district court does not have the authority to discharge a restitution obligation that is not fully satisfied. Here, the restitution obligation has not been fully satisfied. Moreover, a civil settlement in bankruptcy court does not discharge the criminal restitution obligation mandated by the MVRA. A bankruptcy settlement subsequent to the imposition of restitution in criminal court does not waive the requirement of restitution. See United States v. Edwards, 595 F.3d 1004, 1014 (9th Cir. 2010); see also United States v. Cloud, 872 F.2d 846 (9th Cir.l989) . This is so because restitution serves penal
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that because the state was not a party to a settlement agreement a civil release of claims does not and cannot specifically preclude courtordered restitution in a criminal case
B. holding that the existence of a prior bankruptcy settlement does not preclude a subsequent criminal restitution order
C. holding that a district court may order restitution despite a settlement agreement
D. holding that equitable restitution is available but that legal restitution is not
E. holding that the dismissal of a civil action in state court does not preclude a restitution order on the same claim
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.