Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
[] is a matter which lies largely within the discretion of the trial judge.” Consol. Masonry & Fireproofing, Inc. v. Wagman Const. Co., 383 F.2d 249, 251 (4th Cir.1967). Even where a defendant does not explicitly ask for default to be set aside, a brief in opposition to default judgment will be treated as a request to have default set aside, and will be analyzed under the “good cause” standard. See FDIC v. Danzig, 10 F.3d 806, 1993 WL 478842, at *2 (4th Cir.1993) (unpublished table decision) (‘Where, as here, a court is ruling upon a plaintiff’s application for a default judgment, it properly treats the defendant’s opposition as a motion to set aside the entry of default, which is assessed under Rule 55(c)’s good cause standard.”) (citing Meehan v. Snow, 652 F.2d 274, 276 (2d Cir.1981) ). Therefore, as stated above, Wong’s
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that district court did not abuse its discretion in determining that motion to set aside default made at least seven months after defendant learned of entry of default was not made within a reasonable time
B. holding that in considering the appellants opposition to the motion for a default judgment it is proper to apply the rule 55c standard for setting aside the entry of a default
C. holding that trial court must make entry of default prior to entry of default judgment and court may not make entry of default when there is no default in law or in fact
D. holding that the trial court was without authority to set aside entry of default on motion to set aside default judgment
E. holding that a motion to dismiss or for summary judgment precluded default judgment
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.