Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
was proper, even though later events which developed led to remand. Amoco Petroleum, 964 F.2d at 708 (7th Cir.1992). 11 . The Seventh Circuit clarified its Amoco Petroleum reasoning in In re Shell Oil Co., 966 F.2d 1130, 1132 (7th Cir.1992) (granting mandamus in part and directing district court to explain why it remanded case). Judge Easterbrook stated as dictum in Shell Oil that the language of § 1447(c)—i.e., remand is permitted "any time before final judgment”—does not mean that changes after removal can eliminate jurisdiction and compel remand. Rather, "[njeither the text of the revised § 1447(c) nor its legislative history implies that Congress altered the traditional view expressed in St. Paul [Mercury Indemnity Co. v. Red Cab Co., 303 U.S. 283, 58 S.Ct. 586, 82 L.Ed. 845 (1938)  ] ... that jurisdiction present at the time a
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that district courts do not have appellate jurisdiction over state courts
B. holding no jurisdiction to review order raising amount of bail and questioning jurisdiction to review denial of motion to reduce bond
C. holding events occurring subsequent to removal which reduce amount recoverable do not oust district courts jurisdiction
D. holding that review of an original removal decision and a subsequent removal order are distinct
E. holding that events occurring subsequent to removal which reduce the amount recoverable whether beyond the plaintiffs control or the result of his volition do not oust the district courts jurisdiction once it has attached
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.