Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
objected to arbitration on numerous grounds, including that the agreement to arbitrate was unconscionable. Although the District Court found that the arbitral forum was unavailable, it neither addressed substitution of a different arbitrator under § 5 of the FAA nor reached Mr. Inetianbor’s claim of unconscionability. Mr. Inetianbor does not ask us specifically to affirm on the grounds that the agreement to arbitrate was unconscionable, but he has repeatedly maintained on appeal that the agreement was a sham. I agree and conclude Congress did not intend for the federal courts to compel arbitration in such circumstances and that we should exercise our discretion to affirm the District Court on this alternate ground. See Lucas v. W.W. Grainger, Inc., 257 F.3d 1249, 1256 (11th Cir.2001) ; Stewart v. Happy Herman’s Cheshire. Bridge,
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that judgment may be affirmed on any ground supported by record
B. holding that judgment may be affirmed on any ground supported by the record
C. holding that in reviewing a district courts decision on a motion for summary judgment de novo the decision can be affirmed on any ground that finds support in the record including an alternate ground
D. holding that a grant of summary judgment may be affirmed on any independent ground revealed by the record
E. holding that the trial court may not grant summary judgment on a ground not raised in the motion
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.