Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
light of the statute’s language, structure, and legislative history. If such inferences of intent are not present, we must conclude that “ ‘the essential predicate for implication of a private remedy’” does not exist. Thompson, 484 U.S. at 179, 108 S.Ct. at 516 (quoting Northwest Airlines, Inc. v. Transport Workers Union of America, 451 U.S. 77, 94, 101 S.Ct. 1571, 1582, 67 L.Ed.2d 750 (1981)). “Courts seldom imply a private right of action where none appears in the statute, for ‘a strong presumption exists against [their] creation....’” Statland v. American Airlines, Inc., 998 F.2d 539, 540 (7th Cir.1993) (quoting West Allis Mem’l Hosp., Inc. v. Bowen, 852 F.2d 251, 254 (7th Cir.1988)); see also Louisiana Landmarks Soc’y, Inc. v. City of New Orleans, 85 F.3d 1119, 1123 (5th Cir.1996) ; Stowell v. Ives, 976 F.2d 65, 70 n. 5 (1st
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. recognizing added presumption
B. recognizing this presumption
C. recognizing this rule
D. recognizing a presumption of reasonableness
E. recognizing that this court applies an appellate presumption of reasonableness to a withinguidelines sentence
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.