Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
imprisonment, below the 24-month sentence recommended by Probation. II Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11 prohibits “[t]he court” from participating in plea discussions. Fed.R.Crim.P. 11(c)(1). The Federal Rules broadly define “[c]ourt” to “mean[ ] a federal judge performing functions authorized by law,” Fed.R.Crim.P. 1(b)(2), a definition which expressly includes “a magistrate judge” executing' his or her legal duty, Fed. R.Crim.P. 1(b)(3)(B). While Rule 11(c)(1) appears to prohibit any form of judicial participation in the plea bargaining process, our “court previously approved the participation by a settlement judge in plea negotiations.” United States v. Scolari, 72 F.3d 751, 753 (9th Cir.1995); see United States v. Torres, 999 F.2d 376, 377-78 (9th Cir.1993) (per curiam) . Torres and Scolari did not address, much less
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that no rule 11 violation occurred when the parties  hammered out their agreement with the assistance of a settlement judge in accordance with the thenexisting criminal case settlement procedures for the southern district of california
B. holding that a settlement agreement is not a court order and therefore a violation of the settlement agreement would not subject a party to contempt
C. holding that the plaintiffs lawsuit which was filed despite a general release in the parties settlement agreement constituted a material breach of the settlement agreement
D. holding that the appellants appeal of the jurys verdict was a material breach of the no appeals provision in the parties settlement agreement
E. holding that because the alleged settlement was never approved by the court under rule 9019 the settlement agreement was unenforceable
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.