Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
110, 58 S.Ct. 803, 811, 82 L.Ed. 1202 (1938) ("[W]hether the water of an interstate stream must be apportioned between the two States is a question of 'federal common law' upon which neither the statutes nor the decisions of either state can be conclusive.”). Federal common law also operates in areas “in which Congress has given the courts the power to develop substantive law.” Texas Indus., 451 U.S. at 640, 101 S.Ct. at 2067. See, e.g., Firestone Tire & Rubber Co. v. Bruch, 489 U.S. 101, 110, 109 S.Ct. 948, 954, 103 L.Ed.2d 80 (1989) ("[C]ourts are to develop a federal common law of rights and obligations under ERISA plans.” (citation and internal quotation omitted)); Nat’l Soc’y of Professional Engineers v. United States, 435 U.S. 679, 688, 98 S.Ct. 1355, 1363, 55 L.Ed.2d 637 (1978) . 13 . See Peter Westen and Jeffrey S. Lehman,
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that district courts discretion is extremely broad
B. holding that congress expected the courts to give shape to the sherman acts broad mandate by drawing on commonlaw tradition
C. recognizing the broad power of federal courts to fashion appropriate relief
D. recognizing that congress desired a broad definition of a claim 
E. recognizing that congress has the power to completely divest the courts of their sentencing discretion and that congress granted broad authority to the sentencing commission guided by specific goals and principles
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.