Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
NEPA challenge. E. Jurisdictional Bar of Section 9613(h) as Applied to Plaintiffs’ First Amendment Challenge — First Cause of Action The jurisdictional bar of section 9613(h) applies differently when it comes to Plaintiffs’ First Amendment claim. Most courts have flatly concluded that because section 9613(h) bars pre-enforcement judicial review of “any challenges to removal or remedial actions selected,” it also bars pre-enforcement judicial review of constitutional challenges to CERCLA itself. See Aztec Minerals Corp. v. United States Envtl. Prot. Agency, No. 98-1380, 1999 WL 969270, at *3 (10th Cir. Oct.25, 1999) (concluding that section 9613(h) barred plaintiffs due process claim as to the EPA’s regulation of a mine); Barmet Aluminum Corp. v. Reilly, 927 F.2d 289, 295 (6th Cir.1991) ; Schalk, 900 F.2d at 1097 (rejecting
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding the court lacked jurisdiction over claim under  2513 without certificate from district court
B. holding this court may affirm on any grounds supported by the record even if different from the district courts grounds
C. holding that a district court may impose sanctions for abuse of judicial process pursuant to rule 11 even after it is determined that the court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over the plaintiffs claims
D. holding that because the state failed to properly file the complaint the district court lacked jurisdiction to proceed to trial
E. holding that the district court lacked jurisdiction to enjoin the epa on due process grounds from regulating plaintiffs landfill
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.