Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
that the district court did not impermissibly delegate its authority to establish a repayment plan to the IRS. The district court clearly stated at the resentencing hearing that it: anticipate^] a payment plan being submitted to it within 30 days of the defendant’s beginning of supervised release that would set forth the nature of the regular payments, not only during supervised release, but for the period within which those payments can be demanded and accepted and paid. Resentencing Tr. at 29. Here, the district court delegated the establishment of an initial payment plan to the IRS, which the district court would then approve or reject upon submission. Our precedents make clear that this is an acceptable procedure. See Weinberger v. United States, 268 F.3d 346, 360 (6th Cir.2001) . May does not fare any better with his
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that where the government has not presented evidence at the hearing concerning the appropriate amount of restitution    the imposition of the restitution order constitutes plain error
B. holding that when trial court orders restitution at sentencing pursuant to statute the defendant is entitled to notice of the amount claimed and the opportunity to dispute the amount
C. holding that the decision of the appellate court establishes the law of the case and it must be followed by the trial court on remand
D. holding that the court erred in failing to inform the defendant that it could impose restitution but that the error did not affect the defendants substantial rights because the court informed the defendant that it could impose a maximum fine of an amount higher than the restitution amount imposed
E. holding that a sentencing court does not abrogate its judicial authority when it delegates the setting of a restitutionpayment schedule  provided that the court first establishes the amount of restitution
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.