Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
of [the stay put provision, Congress] unequivocally,” intended to “strip schools of the unilateral authority they had traditionally employed” and that the provision “means what it says”). The meaning of the phrase “current educational placement,” never expressly defined in the statute, is at the heart of the dispute between the parties in the case at bar. In Burlington, the Court observed that an administrative decision in favor of the parents “would seem to constitute agreement by the State to the change of placement,” 471 U.S. at 372, 105 S.Ct. 1996; in other words, the decision would seem to constitute a “current educational placement.” Other courts have followed this understanding of the relevant statutes. See, e. g., Susquenita Sch. Dist. v. Raelee S., 96 F.3d 78, 83 (3d Cir.1996) ; Murphy v. Arlington Cent. Sch. Dist. Bd. of
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that in the absence of an intervening supreme court decision only the en banc court may overrule a decision by a threejudge panel
B. holding that one panel of this court is bound by the precedent of an earlier panel absent en banc reconsideration or a superseding contrary decision of the supreme court
C. holding that the decision of the supreme court in burlington established that a ruling by the education appeals panel in favor of the parents position constitutes agreement for purposes of the pendent placement provision
D. holding that a panel of the court of appeals is bound by a prior decision of another panel of the same court addressing the same question but in a different case unless overturned by an intervening decision from a higher court
E. holding that where a panel of the court of appeals has decided the same issue albeit in a different case a subsequent panel of the same court is bound by that precedent unless it has been overturned by a higher court
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.