Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
and the court, after a noticed hearing that Michelle failed to even attend, then ordered restitution in early 2007. ¶ 19 Unlike Alton D., this is not a case in which the juvenile court set a reasonable deadline, or for that matter any time limit, within which a restitution claim had to be submitted. See Alton D., 196 Ariz. 195, ¶¶ 2, 19, 994 P.2d at 403, 406-07. And, unlike the situation in Kevin A., in this ease the juvenile court never indicated that “ ‘restitution [would] be closed’ ” at a certain point in time. Kevin A., 201 Ariz. 161, ¶ 3, 32 P.3d at 1089; see also In re Richard B., 216 Ariz. 127, ¶ 17, 163 P.3d 1077, 1081 (App.2007). Nor did the victim fail to comply with any deadline or other order concerning restitution. Compare Alton D., 196 Ariz. 195, ¶ 19, 994 P.2d at 407 , and Kevin A., 201 Ariz. 161, ¶¶ 4, 8, 32 P.3d
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that the amount of restitution is limited to the victims actual losses 
B. holding that when in light of the circumstances of a particular case the court sets a reasonable deadline by which victims must present their restitution claims and supporting evidence any victim who fails to comply is barred from recovery
C. holding that a district court cannot order restitution in amounts that will result in the payment to the victim of an amount greater than the victims loss
D. holding that court cannot order restitution under the mvra to persons who are not victims of the offenses for which the defendant was convicted
E. holding that even though the victim has settled a civil claim and signed a release the state is not barred from seeking or the court from imposing reasonable restitution
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.