Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
held in Mingo v. Sugar Cane Growers Co-op. of Florida, findings satisfying both prongs of our standard are essential before dismissal with prejudice is appropriate. 864 F.2d 101, 102-03 (11th Cir.1989). And, although “we occasionally have found implicit in an order the [findings necessary to support dismissal], we have never suggested that the district court need not make that finding.” World Thrust Films, Inc., 41 F.3d at 1456 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). We rigidly require the district courts to make these findings precisely “[b]ecause the sanction of dismissal with prejudice is so unsparing,” Mingo, 864 F.2d at 103, and we strive to afford a litigant his or her day in court, if possible. Flaksa v. Little River Marine Constr. Co., 389 F.2d 885, 888 (5th Cir.1968) . Thus, in Mingo, where the district court
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. recognizing the importance except in the most flagrant circumstances of resorting to sanctions that do not deprive a litigant of his day in court
B. holding that it is error to conduct most of the jury selection process in the absence of the defendant
C. recognizing that it is not enough merely to mention a possible argument in the most skeletal way leaving the court to do counsels work
D. holding that a litigant has standing to challenge the constitutionality of a statute if the law is unconstitutional as applied to that particular litigant
E. holding that court had no obligation to inform pro se litigant of procedural requirements due to clear evidence in record including inter alia defendants mention of requirements in summary judgment motion that litigant knew requirements
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.