Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
Leasing Corp., 699 F.2d 58, 61 (1st Cir.1983) (”[I]n case of doubt, an instrument is to be taken against the party that drew it”); ER Holdings, Inc. v. Norton Co., 735 F.Supp. 1094, 1100 (D.Mass.1990) ("Massachusetts law construes ambiguous contractual language against the drafter”)). This Court need not reach the issue before Judge Hillman. Even if the language were ambiguous as capable of the two meanings offered in Cromwell, the Gizas cannot rely on either as a rebuttal to the presumption of delivery where they did not testify with any assurance or consistency as to what they received, where they put it or what happened to it thereafter. 20 .The District Court affirmed the Bankruptcy Court’s ruling that Appellants had violated the MCCCDA by failing to provi 008, 1012 (7th Cir.2004) , with Stutzka v. McCarville, 420 F.3d 757, 762
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that the mere existence of a scintilla of evidence is insufficient to create a dispute of fact that is genuine
B. holding that mere assertion of nonreceipt is not enough to raise a genuine issue of fact as to compliance with the regula tion
C. holding response stating attached evidence demonstrated genuine fact issues insufficient to raise issue
D. holding that where affidavits raise a genuine issue of material fact as to a brady claim an evidentiary hearing should be conducted
E. holding that a speculative affidavit which contained mere conjecture was insufficient to create a genuine issue of material fact for trial
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.