Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
§ 3. As we have discussed, Stewart decided whether a worker on a floating dredge was a seaman. Steivart did not decide whether a ship taken out of the water for extensive repairs was a vessel. Stewart’s holding, thus, does not decide the issue before us. Rather, we must decide this case by looking at its distinct factual circumstances and their legal implications. Nehring v. S.S. M/V Point Vail, 901 F.2d 1044, 1050 (11th Cir.1990). Stewart simply reinforces our precedent, directing our focus to the BETTY LYN II’s practical capability to serve as a means of maritime transportation. D. The BETTY LYN II is a Vessel A “case-by-case approach” is often necessary to determine whether admiralty jurisdiction applies to “novel or unusual situations.” Id. This case w 45, 850-51 (8th Cir.2004) ; Colonna’s Shipyard, 584 F.Supp.2d at 864,
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that the plaintiffs speech was not constitutionally protected because it was made in his official capacity and there was simply no evidence that he was speaking as a citizen on a matter of public concern
B. holding that a plaintiff had no injury in fact and consequently no standing when it had no enforceable contract right against the defendant
C. holding that because civil contempt is only to obtain compliance it must be used only where the contemnor has the present ability to comply with the court order and the trial court specifically finds that the contemnor has that ability
D. holding that a ship with inoperable engines and no ability to selfpropel was a vessel because it had residual navigational capacity
E. holding that plaintiffs did not have standing because they did not sue the party with the clear ability to act
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.