Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
CURIAM: William Andrew Kinsey, III, challenges the district court’s dismissal of his motion, which he had styled a “motion for clarification.” In his motion, he argued that the language of his judgment of conviction does not clearly indicate that his restitution payments are to begin while he is incarcerated. On appeal, he argues that the district court improperly dismissed his motion and characterized it as a successive motion to vacate filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255. Whether a district court has jurisdiction is a question of law subject to de novo or plenary review. See, e.g., United States v. Diaz-Clark, 292 F.3d 1310, 1315 (11th Cir. 2002) . We may review a district court’s jurisdiction
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that claimed errors of law are subject to plenary review
B. holding that the question whether section 3553b permits departure in some particular case is subject to plenary review
C. 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
D. holding that a court of appeals should review de novo a district courts determination of state law
E. holding that a district courts determination of its jurisdiction to resentence a defendant is subject to plenary review
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.