Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
Registration and Notification Act (SORNA), which, among other things, imposes federal criminal penalties on sex offenders who knowingly fail to register or update their registrations. See 18 U.S.C. § 2250; 42 U.S.C. § 16913. Congress enacted SORNA in 2006 but delegated to the Attorney General the authority to determine whether and when SORNA should apply retroactively to sex offenders convicted before SORNA’s effective date. See 42 U.S.C. § 16913(d); Reynolds v. United States, — U.S. -, 132 S.Ct. 975, 181 L.Ed.2d 935 (2012). The Attorney General has exercised this authority and made SORNA retroactive, but the circuits have split over which action by the Attorney General was successful in making the statute retroactive. Compare United States v. Dean, 604 F.3d 1275 (11th Cir.2010) , and United States v. Gould, 568 F.3d 459 (4th
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that sorna is only unconstitutional when applied to those previouslyconvicted persons who traveled before the attorney generals rule
B. holding that the act is not retroactive
C. holding that the act is retroactive
D. holding attorney general could not contract on behalf of the state to employ an assistant attorney beyond the attorney generals own term
E. holding that sorna was made retroactive by the attorney generals february 28 2007 interim rule
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.