Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
ordinance. The statutes’ plain language reflects a significant dichotomy of usage. Compare N.C. Gen. Stat. § 160A-37(a) (1994) (legislating that for an early step in annexation process a municipality has to pass a resolution) with N.C. Gen. Stat. § 160A-49(e) (1994) (describing the final step in municipality’s annexation process as enactment of an ordinance). Furthermore, the distinct usage of the terms within the annexation laws also leads us to believe that a resolution of intent is more in the nature of a proposed ordinance. A resolution is used by a municipality as an early step looking to enactment of the annexation ordinance. See N.C. Gen. Stat. § 160A-37(a) (1994); see also Asheville Industries, Inc. v. City of Asheville, 112 N.C. App. 713, 716-17, 436 S.E.2d 873, 875-76 (1993) . In contrast to the contextual usage of
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that resolution of tribal law disputes are not within federal court jurisdiction
B. holding that the relevant intent is not the intent to return ultimately but the intent to return to the united states within a relatively short period
C. holding that a credit card company could not introduce an alternative dispute resolution provision through a bill stuffer where nothing in the original agreement mentioned dispute resolution
D. holding that the only showing of intent required for a vcea claim is the intent to do the act involved
E. recognizing that a resolution of intent marks the beginning of the annexation process
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.