Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
In that case, jurisdiction existed when the case was filed and the question was whether the amended complaint subsequently divested the court of jurisdiction; here, plaintiffs argue the inverse. Id. Similarly, several other cases relied on by plaintiffs relate to amended rather than supplemental complaints, and thus are not on point. 4 . Recent cases bring into question whether the statutory limitations implicated in these cases are truly jurisdictional or are "nonjuris-dictional ‘claim-processing rules.’” See Gonzalez v. Thaler, - U.S. -, 132 S.Ct. 641, 648, 181 L.Ed.2d 619 (2012) (noting that in the past, the Court was less than meticulous in rendering statutory language jurisdictional); Henderson ex rel. Henderson v. Shinseki, - U.S. -, 131 S.Ct. 1197, 179 L.Ed.2d 159 (2011) ; Reed Elsevier, Inc. v. Muchnick, — U.S. -,
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that the federal expert witness compensation rules are in direct conflict with the state rules even when the state rules allow for a greater recovery
B. holding that a 120day filing deadline for seeking review by the us court of appeals for veterans claims was a claimprocessing rule that lacked jurisdictional attributes
C. holding that the 120day filing deadline at issue was ajmong the types of rules that should not be described as jurisdictional but rather claim processing rules
D. holding that the 180day filing deadline is jurisdictional and mandatory
E. holding that an agency filing deadline set forth in a regulation as a rule of administrative convenience is not jurisdictional
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.