Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
holding the legislature’s adoption of statutes for renewal by affidavit neither repealed the statute tolling an action based on a person’s absence, nor precluded the separate action on the judgment for renewal: Of course, it may be easier to renew a judgment by affidavit; but it by no means follows that the old judgment may not be made the basis of a new suit, and many cases arise where it is an advantage to be able to bring suit, instead of renewing by affidavit — the case at bar being an example. It is our conclusion that the two remedies are not inconsistent, and that a judgment creditor may either sue upon his judgment, or renew it by affidavit, if he complies with the respective laws. Id. at 487-88, 137 N.W. at 450 (emphasis added). See also Herzig, 2011 ND 7, ¶ 12, 793 N.W.2d 371 ; Jahner, 515 N.W.2d at 186 (holding Ryan case
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding there was no claim and no basis for a claim of surprise concerning allegation of a former conviction
B. holding that there was no question that the full and fair opportunity element was met where there was no indication that such an opportunity was unavailable
C. holding that when there was no surprise and no prejudice defendant was entitled to rely on defense of accord and satisfaction in its summary judgment motion even though it was not included in the pleadings
D. holding that absent some showing that prosecutorial discretion was abused in the selection of cases in which the death penalty was sought there is no basis for either a claim under the eighth amendment or a claim under the equal protection clause
E. holding no tolling under ryan and ndcc  280132 when there was no claim judgment debtor was absent from the state
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.