Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
133 S.Ct. at 2082. We remand for resentencing so as not to pretermit the trial judge’s role in exercising the full discretion the law provides. B. The three other Olano factors also support vacatur and remand for resentencing here: The ex post facto violation was plain, it affected Head’s substantial rights, and it impaired the integrity of the sentencing proceeding. 507 U.S. at 732, 113 S.Ct. 1770. The district court’s error was “plain.” Olano, 507 U.S. at 734, 113 S.Ct. 1770. In this circuit, one circumstance in which an error may be plain is “if, at the time it was made, a clear precedent in the Supreme Court or this circuit established its erroneous character.” United States v. Terrell, 696 F.3d 1257, 1260 (D.C.Cir.2012); see In re Sealed Case, 573 F.3d 844, 851 (D.C.Cir.2009) . In January 2012, when the district court
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that an error can be plain even in the absence of binding case law where it violates an absolutely clear legal norm
B. holding that an error is plain only if it is clear under current law when there is no binding precedent on point an instruction typically will not be plain error
C. holding that an error is plain if it is clear or obvious
D. holding that a trial court does not commit plain error unless the error is clear under current law
E. holding that an error cannot be plain unless it is clear under current law quotation omitted
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.