Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
(3)[are] effectively unreviewable on appeal from a final judgment.’” Liberty Synergistics Inc. v. Microflo Ltd., 718 F.3d 138, 146 (2d Cir.2013) (quoting Will v. Hallock, 546 U.S. 345, 349, 126 S.Ct. 952, 163 L.Ed.2d 836 (2006)). Defendants’ argument fails because the collateral order exception does not apply to orders denying a motion to withdraw the reference. See In re Chateaugay Corp., 826 F.2d at 1180 (reasoning that “[ojrders denying revocation of a reference to the bankruptcy court do not conclusively determine any substantive issue; they merely address where that issue will initially be decided,” and that such orders remain subject to review on appeal). Mahia’s professed right to a jury trial warrants no different conclusion. See Germain v. Conn. Nat’l Bank, 930 F.2d at 1040 . Further, although Chateaugay addressed the
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that though a trial court is not required to make findings of fact absent a request whether there exists sufficient evidence to support the order ruling on a motion to set aside a judgment is fully reviewable
B. holding that the courts denial of either a motion to dismiss or a motion for summary judgment is not a final judgment and is not reviewable 
C. holding that an appellate court may not consider an issue not presented to the trial judge on appeal from final judgment on the merits
D. holding the denial of a motion for summary judgment on an issue which is later submitted to the jury is not reviewable
E. holding that ruling as to whether or not there will be a jury trial does not meet the third precondition to immediate appealability under the cohen doctrine for such an order is entirely reviewable on appeal from the final judgment
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.