Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
Individual Complaint, the cover letter was dated August 3, 2000, and the return receipt form indicated that the certified mail was received by “Katie” on August 4, 2000. The magistrate judge ruled that the handwritten date on the Notice was in all likelihood a transcription error, in light of the extrinsic evidence attesting to the Notice’s delivery on August 4 — and, moreover, that there was a presumption in favor of delivery of letters that were properly addressed, stamped, and mailed, particularly when the letter had been sent via certified mail. Slip op. at 12-13 (citing C. McCormick, McCormick on Evidence § 343 (5th ed.1999), and Federal Deposit Ins. Corp. v. Schaffer, 731 F.2d 1134, 1137 (4th Cir.1984)); cf. id. at 15 (citing Scholar v. Pac. Bell, 963 F.2d 264, 266 (9th Cir.1992) ). Here, the magistrate judge pointed out,
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that the statute of limitations begins to run on the date the alleged malpractice is discovered
B. holding the sixyear limitations period begins to run upon date that payment is made
C. holding that accrual date begins to run on the date the employee is notified unambiguously of the adverse employment action
D. holding that limitations period begins to run on date notice was received at claimants residence even if claimant did not receive it until a later date
E. holding that the statute of limitations period begins to run when the allegedly discriminatory pension plan is applied to the plaintiffs and leaving determination of the actual date the statute begins to run on each claim to the district court
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.