Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
award was not an abuse of discretion. The district court based its award on a variety of factors: it cited the need for deterrence, and recognized that “the willful and pervasive nature of [Chertok]’s misrepresentations, and the time and effort they added to this litigation,” called for a “considerable sanction.” Joint Appx 290-91. It balanced those considerations against the fact that we vacated two out of the three Rule 11 violations it originally relied on, and the fact that StreetEasy devoted less than one third of its submissions to the affirmed Rule 11 violation. Under these circumstances, it cannot be said that the district court’s decision to award one-third of the original amount was not within the range of permissible decisions. See Eastway Constr. Corp., 821 F.2d at 128 ; see also Caisse Nationale de Credit
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that a motion for rule 11 sanctions is dispositive
B. recognizing wide reach of jurisdiction under title 11
C. holding that courts of appeals should review all aspects of the district courts rule 11 determination for abuse of discretion and noting that the district court has broad discretion to impose rule 11 sanctions
D. recognizing that appellate courts that have applied rule 16 have afforded wide discretion to district courts applications of that rule
E. recognizing district courts wide range of discretion in setting amount of rule 11 sanctions
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.