Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
abused its discretion.” Oravec v. Sunny Isles Luxury Ventures, L.C., 527 F.3d 1218, 1231 (11th Cir.2008). The district court “has discretion to deny leave to amend ... when the moving party offers no adequate explanation for a lengthy delay.” In re Engle Cases, 767 F.3d 1082, 1119 (11th Cir.2014). Witt’s motion was submitted a year after the action was initially filed and lacked any supporting explanation for why leave should have been granted. Her thread bare request failed to state why justice required the opportunity to submit a fourth version of her complaint. As we see it, the district court did not clearly abuse its discretion by denying leave to amend. Moreover, Witt’s proposed amendment was futile. See Hubbard v. BankAtlantic Bancorp, Inc., 688 F.3d 713, 716 (11th Cir.2012)  “Because justice does not require district
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. recognizing that this court may affirm on any ground supported by the record even if it differs from the reasoning of the district court
B. holding that we may affirm a district court if its holding was right for any reason
C. holding this court may affirm on any grounds supported by the record even if different from the district courts grounds
D. recognizing this court may affirm for any reason supported by the record
E. recognizing ability to affirm for any reason that finds support in record
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.