Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
Second Circuit Court of Appeals and held that a state criminal restitution order is non-dischargeable under Section 523(a)(7) of the Bankruptcy Code. The Court stated that Section 523(a)(7) “create[d] a broad exception for all penal sanctions, whether they be denominated fines, penalties, or forfeitures,” and protected traditional criminal fines sufficiently to allow restitution orders to be included within the exception. Id. at 51, 107 S.Ct. at 362, 93 L.Ed.2d at 230. In the Court’s view, federal bankruptcy proceedings should not be used to cir 1993) (concluding that order of restitution imposed as part of a criminal sentence was non-dischargeable in bankruptcy); Cabla v. State, 6 S.W.3d 543, 551 (Tex.Crim.App.1999), cert. denied, 529 U.S. 1092, 120 S.Ct. 1730, 146 L.Ed.2d 650 (2000) . Garnett seeks to distinguish her case from
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that the eleventh amendment does not bar a bankruptcy court from issuing a money judgment against a state under the bankruptcy code
B. holding that apprendi does not apply to state capital sentencing schemes where judges are required to find certain aggravating circumstances before imposing a death sentence
C. holding that the bankruptcy code does not interfere with criminal sentencing schemes
D. holding only that although a party cannot interfere with its own contract a supervisor who is not an officer of a plaintiffs employer is not a party to the plaintiffs employment contract and therefore can interfere with it
E. holding that apprendi does not apply to capital sentencing schemes
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.