Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
Based on this language, Ross argues the restitution statutes must be construed as reaching only those victims affected by wire transactions alleged in the indictment and submitted to the jury. We disagree with the government’s claim that Ross cannot attack the restitution order because we affirmed it in the first appeal. Apprendi was decided after the first appeal, and announced a new (although not watershed) rule of constitutional law. See United States v. Moss, 252 F.3d 993, 997 (8th Cir.2001), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 122 S.Ct. 848, 151 L.Ed.2d 725 (2002). Since Ross relies upon Apprendi, and this appeal is a direct review of Ross’s resentencing, he is not barred from attacking the restitution order. See Griffith v. Kentucky, 479 U.S. 314, 328, 107 S.Ct. 708, 93 L.Ed.2d 649 (1987) . Because Ross raised his Apprendi challenge in
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that a new rule for conducting criminal prosecutions should be applied to all cases pending on direct review or not yet final
B. holding that a new rule for the conduct of criminal prosecutions is to be applied retroactively to all cases  pending on direct review  with no exception for cases in which the new rule constitutes a clear break with the past
C. holding that all newly declared rules must be applied retroactively to all criminal eases pending on direct review
D. recognizing that the pipeline theory allows a defendant to seek application of a new rule of law if the case is pending on direct review or not yet final and the defendant timely objected at trial
E. holding newly announced rules of constitutional criminal procedure must apply retroactively to all cases state or federal pending on direct review or not yet final with no exception
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.