Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
incorrectly because Act 21 violates the equal protection clauses of the United States and Pennsylvania Constitutions. However, we must follow the decisional law established by our own Court. Blumenstock v. Gibson, 811 A.2d 1029, 1039 (Pa.Super.2002). Moreover, we observe that following our decision in In re S.A, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court denied a subsequently filed petition for allowance of appeal. In re S.A., 597 Pa. 733, 952 A.2d 678 (2008). Therefore, unless or until In re S.A. and In re A.C. are overturned by an en banc panel of this Court, or by a decision of the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, they continue to be viable precedent for this Court and for the courts of common pleas. Id. See also, Sorber v. American Motorists Ins. Co., 451 Pa.Super. 507, 680 A.2d 881, 882 (1996) . Hence, we cannot afford Appellant the relief
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding untimely petition for allowance of appeal with pennsylvania supreme court which later denied petition does not operate to circumvent time restrictions of pcra by altering date on which appellants sentence became final
B. holding that even though petition for allowance of appeal was pending before the pennsylvania supreme court decision remained binding precedent as long as the decision had not been overturned by our supreme court
C. holding that the court of appeals erred in declining to apply supreme court precedent even though the reasoning of that precedent had been eroded by subsequent decisions
D. recognizing that our supreme court does not overrule binding precedent sub silentio and noting that because an appellate court opinion did not mention a contradicting supreme court decision the conflict between the two decisions was not called to the attention of the court which denied review of the appellate decision
E. holding that court is bound by prior panels interpretation of supreme court decision
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.