Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
with the majority of circuits that have concluded St. Cyr does not apply to aliens who challenged their aggravated felony convictions by exercising their right to jury trial. We conclude that just as foregoing or exercising a right to jury trial can demonstrate objectively reasonable reliance, those who proceed to trial but forgo their right to appeal have suffered impermissible retroactive effects under IIRIRA § 304(b). Following the Supreme Court’s analysis in St. Cyr, the Third, Fourth, and Sixth Circuits have held that determining whether a statute has retroactive effects does not entail an inquiry into litigants’ actual subjective reliance on prior law, but rather, a review of what reasonable litigants would consider in a given situation. See, e.g., Olatunji, 387 F.3d at 396 ; Thaqi v. Jenifer, 377 F.3d 500, 504 n. 2 (6th
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding in the context of a non  212c iirira retroactivity challenge that if reliance were required we would insist at most upon objectively reasonable reliance and not subjective reliance
B. holding that each class member was not required to prove justifiable reliance when an inference of reliance arises if a materially false representation was made to persons whose acts thereafter were consistent with reliance upon the representations
C. holding that direct reliance was not shown where plaintiffs relied on third partys actions which were in turn undertaken in reliance on alleged misrepresentation by defendant
D. holding that reasonable reliance is not an element of the defense
E. holding suppression of evidence obtained in objectively reasonable reliance on a subsequently invalidated search warrant is not required
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.