Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
who assaults ... his or her spouse ... is guilty of a misdemean- or....” Because the record is incomplete as to what evidence was introduced at Sanders’ criminal trial, we cannot determine whether anything obtained as a result of the allegedly unlawful entry was essential to Sanders’ subsequent conviction. A remand is therefore necessary for further factual developments as to Heck’s applicability. Probable Cause Hearing Sanders’ second claim, that he was not afforded a prompt probable cause hearing, is unaffected by Heck, as that claim is for “monetary damages for a constitutional violation unrelated to [the plaintiff’s] ultimate conviction of the substantive offense.” Alkire v. Irving, 330 F.3d 802, 816 n. 10 (6th Cir.2003); Buckenberger v. Reed, 342 Fed.Appx. 58, 63 (5th Cir.2009) . Indeed, in Gerstein v. Pugh, the case which
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that the fourth amendment does not mandate payment and therefore such claims are not within the jurisdiction of the court
B. holding that claims arising under the sixth amendment fall outside the jurisdiction of the court of federal claims
C. recognizing the range of discretion of the trial judge
D. holding such claims fall within the narrow range of cases that are not barred by heck because a determination of the timeliness of the plaintiffs probable cause hearing will not affect the validity of his conviction
E. holding that as to allocation of burdens it is not material that the facts of the case and the causes of the collision are peculiarly within the knowledge of the respondents  we are not aware   of any ground on which such an inconvenience can affect the rule of law which governs the rights of the parties internal quotation marks omitted
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.