Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
of a court to entertain an independent action to relieve a party from a judgment, decree, order, or proceeding or to set aside a judgment or decree for fraud upon the court.... 3 . The record discloses that Martinez served Mills with a proposal to settle several months before Mills’s proposal was served. Ironically, Martinez also filed his offer with the court in violation of the rule and statute. 4 . Other federal courts have reached similar results when considering time periods established in other statutes. See, e.g., Shenango Inc. v. Apfel, 307 F.3d 174, 193 (3d Cir.2002) (statutory deadline does not, by itself, establish that Congress intended to strip an agency's authority to act after the deadline has passed); Friends of Aquifer, Inc. v. Mineta, 150 F.Supp.2d 1297 (N.D.Fla.2001) ; Bhd. of Ry. Carmen Div. v. Pena, 64 F.3d 702,
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that the secretary is not entitled to deference when construing the acts implementing regulations
B. holding that even though the reasonable doubt instruction given in the case was not the preferred instruction it was not a misstatement of the law and therefore was legally appropriate
C. holding that to grant a writ of mandamus a court in the exercise of its discretion must be satisfied that the writ is appropriate under the circumstances
D. holding that group was not entitled to writ of mandamus given that it was not clear that congress intended deadlines for meeting the standards to be mandatory even though the statute provided that the secretary shall prescribe certain regulations not later than given deadlines
E. holding that the statute is mandatory
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.