Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
WL 370461, at *4 (Minn.App. July 8, 1997) (stating that while section 197.46 specifically allows the veteran’s right to appeal, “both parties have the same right to appeal”), review denied (Minn. Sept. 3, 1997). These decisions cited Schrader as support. Stafne, 1998 WL 778931, at *3; Rollins, 1997 WL 370461, at *4. The district court relied on Schrader and Stafne as support for its dismissal order; Eldredge relies on Rollins in addition to Schrader and Stafne. But as unpublished cases, Stafne and Rollins are not binding authority. Minn.Stat. § 480A.08, subd. 3(c) (2008) (stating that “[u]npublished opinions of the [c]ourt of [ajppeals are not precedential”). And although unpublished cases may have persuasive value, see Dynamic Air, Inc. v. Bloch, 502 N.W.2d 796, 800 (Minn.App. 1993) , because Stafne and Rollins did not involve
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that unpublished opinions have precedential effect
B. holding that unpublished opinions are of persuasive value at best and not precedential
C. holding onejustice opinion has no precedential value
D. recognizing that unpublished decisions issued after january 1 1996 are not controlling precedent but may be considered persuasive authority
E. recognizing that we ordinarily do not accord precedential value to our unpublished decisions and that such decisions are entitled only to the weight they generate by the persuasiveness of their reasoning citation omitted
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.