Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
dismissals of Counts I (Knowingly Presenting False Claims t strict court properly dismissed Smith’s case in response to the violation. The procedural requirements of the False Claims Act, including its seal provision, “are not jurisdictional, and violation of those requirements does not per se require dismissal.” Lujan, 67 F.3d at 245. Further, “[n]o provision of the False Claims Act explicitly authorizes dismissal as a sanction for disclosures in violation of the seal requirement.” Id. Thus, the False Claims Act, on its face, neither mandates nor expressly supports dismissal with prejudice. But we recognize that every other circuit to consider this issue has read such authority into the False Claims Act. See, e.g., U.S. ex rel. Summers v. LHC Grp., Inc., 623 F.3d 287 (6th Cir.2010) ; Lujan, 67 F.3d 242 (9th Cir.1995) (creating a
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that plaintiffs failure to raise his constitutional claims in the military court system bars him from raising them in federal court
B. recognizing autonomy of state and federal bars
C. holding that the requirements for establishing a rehabilitation act violation are similar to those for establishing an ada violation
D. holding that the court bars a party from raising an issue on remand that  was not raised on appeal
E. holding that violation of the seal requirements bars qui tam plaintiffs from qui tam status
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.