Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
a specific individual to qualify as a “means of identification” under 18 U.S.C. § 1028A. We review properly preserved questions of statutory interpretation de novo. United States v. Krawczak, 331 F.3d 1302, 1305 (11th Cir.2003). However, where a defendant fails to present the issue to the district court, like Wilson in this case, we review only for plain error. United States v. Smith, 459 F.3d 1276, 1282-83 (11th Cir.2006). As discussed below, we find no error, much less plain error. This Court has not previously resolved this specific issue in a published opinion, and there appears to be some conflict in the circuits on whether the use of someone’s name qualifies as a “means of identification” under 18 U.S.C. § 1028A. Compare United States v. Mitchell, 518 F.3d 230 (4th Cir.2008) , with United States v. Blixt, 548 F.3d 882
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. recognizing the principle that gives precedence to the terms of the more specific statute where a general statute and a specific statute speak to the same concern
B. holding a bare name alone was not sufficient to identify the specific individual as required under the statute
C. holding that release must specifically name or otherwise specifically identify the persons to be discharged
D. holding that at a bare minimum the district court was required to provide a pro se prisoner with fair notice of the summary judgment rule requirements
E. holding that specific statutes create exceptions to general statutes therefore if a provision of a specific statute is inconsistent with one in a general statute on the same subject the specific statute controls
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.