Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
definition of “frivolous” in interpreting its own postconviction act. See People v. Hodges, 234 Ill.2d 1, 332 Ill.Dec. 318, 912 N.E.2d 1204, 1209-12 (2009) (concluding that a petition can be summarily dismissed as frivolous or patently without merit “only if the petition has no arguable basis either in law or in fact”). The definitions in Rickert, Neitzke, and Hodges closely track the plain and ordinary meaning of the term “frivolous.” See Webster’s Third New International Dictionary 913 (2002) (defining “frivolous” as “of little weight or importance: having no basis in law or fact ”) (emphasis added). Indeed, those definitions are also consistent with the way we have defined the term “frivolous” in other contexts. See, e.g., Bond v. Comm’r of Revenue, 691 N.W.2d 831, 839 (Minn.2005) . Accordingly, we conclude that a petition is
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that second state petition for postconviction relief that was dismissed as frivolous and patently without merit was properly filed
B. holding that a district court may dismiss a frivolous complaint sua sponte notwithstanding the fact that the plaintiff paid the statutory filing fee
C. holding return filled with zeros despite w2 showing considerable income was substantially incorrect or frivolous
D. holding that a plaintiff had no injury in fact and consequently no standing when it had no enforceable contract right against the defendant
E. holding that the taxpayer filed a frivolous return because it had no basis in law or fact
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.