Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
can be little doubt that, as a general matter, alien defendants considering whether to enter into a plea agreement are acutely aware of the immigration consequences of their convictions. Id. at 321-22, 121 S.Ct. 2271 (some internal quotation marks and citations omitted). B Since St. Cyr, lower courts have split over two questions essential to this case: whether reliance must be established objectively, subjectively, or even at all, and whether petitioners who proceed to trial have suffered retroactive effects under § 304(b) of IIRIRA. Following the Third, Fourth, and Sixth ■ Circuits, we .2000) (Alien must have “actually and reasonably relied” on availability of relief for IIRIRA’s repeal of § 212(c) to have retroactive effect); Brooks v. Ashcroft, 283 F.3d 1268, 1274 (11th Cir.2002) . As discussed in Section II.C below, a
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that the repeal of  212c was not impermissibly retroactive because unlike st cyr petitioner did not so choose to rely upon the agreed upon terms of a plea and because his case did not present the same concerns of quid pro quo benefit for an exchange between a defendant and the government
B. holding that a defendant did not waive his right to be present at an ex parte encounter between the judge and juror because he was not present at the time of the communication and therefore had no opportunity to object when the error was committed
C. holding that the government did not present sufficient evidence to support a guilty verdict in a  2251 case because the government did not provide evidence to prove that the defendant intended to create a visual depiction of the sexual conduct
D. holding that the fine print terms at the bottom of an invoice imposing attorney fees were not terms upon which the parties agreed and therefore did not become part of the contract
E. holding because legislature knew how to include terms within statutory definition and did not do so statutory definition did not include terms in light of the terms contemporaneous inclusion of the same terms in a separate provision
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.