Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
against foreign nations formerly, but not currently, designated as state sponsors of terrorism, the fact that North Korea no longer has that designation does not bar attachment of North Korea’s property, or that of its agents and instrumentalities, under § 1610(g). Whether attachment of the EFTs under § 1610(g) is possible turns, instead, on whether the blocked EFTs at issue are “property of’ North Korea or “the property of an agency or instrumentality of’ North Korea. We review these legal questions de novo. Shipping Corp. of India Ltd. v. Jaldhi Overseas Pte Ltd., 585 F.3d 58, 66-67 (2d Cir.2009) (reviewing de novo the “threshold issue of whether EFTs are indeed ‘defendant’s’ property”); see also Salve Regina Coll. v. Russell, 499 U.S. 225, 231, 111 S.Ct. 1217, 113 L.Ed.2d 190 (1991) . “[W]hether or not midstream EFTs may be
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that courts of appeals must review the statelaw determinations of district courts de novo 
B. holding that we review a district courts interpretation of a statute de novo
C. holding that the proper review for the trial courts application of the law is de novo
D. recognizing de novo standard of review
E. holding that a court of appeals should review de novo a district courts determination of state law
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.