Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
in In re Marrama, 430 F.3d 474 (1st Cir.2005), cert. granted — U.S. —, 126 S.Ct. 2859, 165 L.Ed.2d 894 (June 12, 2006), to decide “whether the right to convert a chapter 7 bankruptcy case to another chapter can be denied notwithstanding the plain language of the statute and the legislative history.” 2006 WL 295220 (petition for certiorari filed Jan. 30, 2006). The First Circuit in Marrama found that “at any time” meant “simply [] that the debtor may seek to convert at any time during the pendency of the bankruptcy case ” and that the statute does not prevent a court from refusing to convert based on the debtor’s own “willful misconduct, such as an intentional abuse of the bankruptcy process.” 430 F.3d at 479 (emphasis added). See also In re Finney, 992 F.2d 43, 45 (4th Cir.1993) . In contrast, a bankruptcy appellate panel for
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding in a case considering whether the trial court should have conducted a competency hearing sua sponte that an appellate court may only consider those facts which were before the court when the trial commenced
B. holding that the district court should consider the totality of the circumstances in determining whether the patentee acted in subjective bad faith and should consider whether circumstantial evidence would support an inference of bad faith
C. holding that a state appellate courts decision to raise and answer a constitutional question sua sponte permits subsequent federal habeas review
D. holding that bad faith in a  706a conversion permits the court to consider sua sponte whether the petitioner engaged in abuse of process under 11 usc  105a
E. holding that the district court cannot remand sua sponte for defects in removal procedure
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.