Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
from seeking payment other than its authorized CJA compensation without the express permission of the district court. The district court based its decision on a misapprehension of the extent of its authority under the CJA. Nevertheless, we must affirm its judgment because, on the record before us, Mr. Shippers has not made out a case for contempt. It does not appear that Mr. Shippers’ petition is based on a violation by Mr. Cain or AFTI of any specific order of the district court. See Goluba v. School Dist. of Ripon, 45 F.3d 1035, 1037 (7th Cir.1995) (“To win a motion for civil contempt, a party must prove by clear and convincing evidence that the opposing party violated a court order.” (internal quotation omitted)); D. Patrick, Inc. v. Ford Motor Co., 8 F.3d 455, 460-61 (7th Cir.1993) . Our ruling today does not preclude Mr.
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that a district court may order restitution despite a settlement agreement
B. holding that court enforcement of a settlement agreement is not state action for constitutional purposes
C. holding that the plaintiffs lawsuit which was filed despite a general release in the parties settlement agreement constituted a material breach of the settlement agreement
D. holding that a settlement agreement is not a court order and therefore a violation of the settlement agreement would not subject a party to contempt
E. holding that because the alleged settlement was never approved by the court under rule 9019 the settlement agreement was unenforceable
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.