Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
liability of the defen-dani/third-party plaintiff being reduced by a corresponding percentage. See Alaska R. Civ. P. 14(c) (providing that “[j]udgment may be entered against a third-party defendant in favor of the plaintiff in accordance with the third-party defendant’s respective percentage of fault”). C. Analysis of the State’s Arguments. The State first argues that section 09.17.080 (1996) creates no legal duty between a defendant/third-party plaintiff and a third-party defendant. The State then reasons that the claim by the United States for equitable apportionment is, in essence, nothing more than a claim asserted on behalf of a private-citizen plaintiff, who is barred from asserting a claim directly. (2d Cir.1988) (same); Parks v. United States, 784 F.2d 20, 23-25 (1st Cir.1986) . Despite the distinction that Alaska law draws
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that the eleventh amendment does not bar the united states from asserting an indemnity claim against a state
B. holding that eleventh amendment does not bar federal suit against state official for prospective injunctive relief
C. holding that the eleventh amendment does not bar a bankruptcy court from issuing a money judgment against a state under the bankruptcy code
D. recognizing the eleventh amendment does not bar the united states from suing a state
E. holding that the eleventh amendment does not prohibit the united states from prosecuting a claim of contribution
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.