Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
in the March order. The district court in fact denied Liberty’s Motion to Enforce the March order “given the non-specific language” thereof, and thus recognized that the March order, in invalidating the DPS as an offset against a dealer’s claimed retail rate, did not preclude Ford from requiring a dealer to substantiate its claimed retail rate. Slip op. at l. This court repeatedly has refused to uphold orders entered as sanctions based on conduct that did not violate a clear, specific mandate. See, e.g., Harris v. City of Philadelphia, 47 F.3d 1342, 1352 (3d Cir.1995) (reversing imposition of sanctions where decree sought to be enforced lacked “an unambiguous provision” prohibiting the conduct at issue); Louis W. Epstein Family Partnership v. Kmart Corp., 13 F.3d 762, 771 (3d Cir.1994) ; Eavenson, Auchmuty & Greenwald v. Holtzman,
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that bjroad nonspecific language in an order does not give a party fair notice of what conduct will risk contempt and thus cannot support imposition of sanctions
B. holding that while imposition of the most serious sanctions such as witness exclusion triggers a burnet analysis imposition of lesser sanctions like monetary compensation does not
C. holding that due process requires notice and an opportunity to respond before imposition of rule 11 sanctions
D. holding that where party had reasonable grounds to believe conduct was in compliance with the district courts order imposition of sanctions was not warranted and constituted an abuse of discretion
E. holding that the imposition of sanctions is reviewed for abuse of discretion
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.