Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
court is without jurisdiction to hear the claim until administrative review is complete. See Shalala v. Illinois Council on Long Term Care, Inc., — U.S. -, 120 S.Ct. 1084, 1089, 146 L.Ed.2d 1 (2000); Thunder Basin Coal Co., 510 U.S. at 202, 207, 218, 114 S.Ct. 771. Section 925(c) explicitly limits the scope of district court jurisdiction to the “judicial review of [a] denial” by the Secretary of the Treasury of an application for relief. The statutory scheme set forth in Section 925(c) makes it not only “fairly discernible” but abundantly clear that Congress intended to confine the initial adjudication of § 925(c) applications to the Secretary of the Treasury. First, § 925(c) is not written so as to create a freestanding opportunity for relief fr 120 F.3d 1087, 1090 (9th Cir.1997) ; United States v. McGill, 74 F.3d 64, 66 (5th
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that there must first be a denial by atf for the district court to review
B. holding that the federal district court had no subject matter jurisdiction to review the courts denial of a particular application for admission to the district of columbia bar
C. holding that the federal district court lacked subject matter jurisdiction to review plaintiffs complaint to the extent they sought review  of the district of columbia court of appeals denial of their petitions
D. holding that congress intended for district courts to review only the secretarys denial
E. holding that appeal from denial of rule 60b motion raised for review only the district courts order of denial and not the underlying judgment itself
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.