Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
or direct that service be effected within a specified time; provided that if the plaintiff shows good cause for the failure, the court shall extend the time for service for an appropriate period.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 4(m). Good cause exists “only when some outside factor^] such as reliance on faulty advice, rather than inadvertence or negligence, prevented service.” Prisco v. Frank, 929 F.2d 603, 604 (11th Cir.1991) (per curiam) (discussing “good cause” under the former Rule 4(j)), superseded in part by rule as stated in Horenkamp, 402 F.3d at 1132 n. 2. Even in the absence of good cause, a district court has the discretion to extend the time for service of process. Horen-kamp, 402 F.3d at 1132; see Henderson v. United States, 517 U.S. 654, 663, 116 S.Ct. 1638, 1643, 134 L.Ed.2d 880 (1996) . The district court concluded that the
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. recognizing that in the 1993 amendments to the rules courts have been accorded the discretion to enlarge the 120day period even in the absence of showing good cause
B. holding that the plain language of the rule broadens a courts discretion to extend time for service even if good cause has not been shown
C. recognizing the cause of action
D. holding that an extension of time in which to serve process may be granted despite the absence of good cause
E. holding that after the omnibus date the trial courts discretion controlled and such discretion is exercisable upon a showing of good cause by a defendant who has missed the deadline
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.