Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
they expressly state or overwhelmingly imply that KSU waived Eleventh Amendment immunity. To resolve this dispute, we must evaluate whether a state may waive immunity by its affirmative conduct in the context of a federal. program or whether Edelman mandates that a state can waive only by express statements or overwhelming implication in its statutory or constitutional text. See Atascadero, 473 U.S. at 238. n. 1 & 239-40, 105 S.Ct. 3142; Edelman, 415 U.S. at 673, 94 S.Ct. 1347. Several Supreme Court decisions. provide that neither receipt of federal funds, participation in a federal program, nor an agreement to recognize and abide by federal laws, regulations, and guidelines is alone sufficient to waive Eleventh Amendment immunity. See Atascadero, 473 U.S. at 246-47, 105 S.Ct. 3142 ; Florida Dep’t of Health & Rehab. Servs. v.
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that a college received federal funds where the funds were granted to its students as financial aid rather than directly to the college because the language of the section does not distinguish between direct and indirect receipt of federal funds
B. holding the requisite connection was met with proof that the city received federal funds for housing and urban development programs and the corrupt payments at issue concerned real estate transactions also without specifying which federal grant provided the jurisdictional basis
C. holding that neither mere participation in a federal program nor provision requiring compliance with federal law is sufficient to establish that the state consented to be sued in federal court
D. holding that participation in federal programs and receipt of federal funds under such programs fall far short of manifesting a clear intent  to waive immunity
E. holding that removal to federal court does not waive tribal sovereign immunity
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.