Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
Navarro-Flores of his right to consular notification. Nevertheless, as Navarro-Flores acknowledges, neither this court nor the Supreme Court has resolved the question whether the Vienna Convention confers individually enforceable rights upon a defendant. See Sanchez-Llamas v. Oregon, 548 U.S. 331, 342, 126 S.Ct. 2669, 165 L.Ed.2d 557 (2006) (declining “to resolve the question whether the Vienna Convention grants individuals enforceable rights”); Torres de la Cruz v. Maurer, 483 F.3d 1013, 1024 n. 11 (10th Cir.2007) (expressing “serious doubts” the Vienna Convention grants individually enforceable rights). The courts of appeal that have affirmatively passed upon the issue, moreover, reach differing conclusions. Compare Cornejo v. County of San Diego, 504 F.3d 853, 863 (9th Cir.2007) ; United States v. Emuegbunam, 268 F.3d 377,
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that summary judgment order that does not dispose of all claims between parties does not confer appellate jurisdiction because it is not a final decision under 28 usc  1291
B. holding that the mere delivery of documents  does not confer jurisdiction
C. holding that the flsa does not confer jurisdiction over ambulance services
D. holding that a waiver of right to appeal contained in a plea agreement is enforceable
E. holding the vienna convention does not confer a privately enforceable right to be notified
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.