Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
also In re Kingsley, 518 F.3d 874, 878 (11th Cir.2008) (“one who has acted in bad faith, resorted to trickery and deception, or been guilty of fraud, injustice or unfairness will appeal in vain to a court of conscience”) (citation omitted). The U.S. Supreme Court has observed that “[c]ourts of equity frequently decline to interfere on behalf of a complainant whose attitude is unconscientious in respect of the matter concerning which it seeks relief.” National Fire Ins. Co. of Hartford v. Thompson, 281 U.S. 331, 338, 50 S.Ct. 288, 74 L.Ed. 881 (1930). The Grayson panel gleaned from these fundamental principles a “strong presumption against the grant of dilatory equitable relief.” 491 F.3d at 1326; see also Hill v. McDonough, 547 U.S. 573, 584-85, 126 S.Ct. 2096, 165 L.Ed.2d 44 (2006) . Simply put, equity aids the vigilant, not
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. recognizing that the section does not  authorize suits for cancellation in the district courts
B. holding that eleventh amendment bars federal suits against state courts
C. holding that in statute authorizing suits against united states limits time period in which such suits may be brought united states retains its sovereign immunity as to any suits brought outside of that time period therefore court does not have subject matter jurisdiction over suit against united states that is barred by statute of limitations
D. holding that equitable tolling principles apply to suits against the united states in the same manner as they apply to private parties
E. recognizing that a number of federal courts have invoked their equitable powers to dismiss suits they saw as speculative or filed too late in the day and opining that federal courts can and should protect states from dilatory or speculative suits
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.