Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
by courts as “overbroad,” Kapeluschnik, 1999 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 22883, at *18, and “frivolous,” Sturdevant v. Thomas E. Jolas, P.C., 942 F.Supp. 426, 430 (W.D.Wis.1996). At the same time, courts have noted that “in cases where the likelihood of legal action is not clear from the language, the letter’s source can be determinative, especially if it purports to be from an attorney.” Jenkins v. Union Corp., 999 F.Supp. 1120 (N.D.Ill.1998). “Because to most consumers, the relevant distinction between a collection agency and an attorney is the ability to sue,” a letter signed by an attorney signals to the unsophistcated consumer that legal action is at hand. United States v. Nat’l Fin. Servs., 98 F.3d 131, 136-37 (4th Cir.1996); see Russey v. Rankin, 911 F.Supp. 1449, 1454 (D.N.M. 1995) . In addition to the source of the
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that plaintiffs failure to notify attorney of receipt of right to sue letter and failure to confirm that the attorney had received the letter did not warrant the application of equitable tolling
B. holding that the right to have counsel present means the right to have counsel physically present during the interrogation not merely the right to consult an attorney by telephone
C. holding that a letter clearly threatened litigation when it purported to be from an attorney and declared that we have the legal right to file a lawsuit
D. holding an arrestee has the right to contact an attorney but not a specific attorney who is unavailable when called
E. holding that district court could impose attorney fees where plaintiffs lawsuit patently had no legal merit
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.