Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
Dec. 21, 2007) (McCurn, S.J.); see also Tavarez v. Reno, 54 F.3d 109, 110 (2d Cir.1995). These claims are likewise precluded by the Supreme Court’s ruling in Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 486-87, 114 S.Ct. 2364, 129 L.Ed.2d 383 (1994), where the Court held that: [I]n order to recover from damages for allegedly unconstitutional conviction or imprisonment, or for other harm caused by actions whose unlawfulness would render a conviction or sentence invalid, a § 1983 plaintiff must prove that the conviction or sentence has been reversed on direct appeal, expunged by executive order, declared invalid by a state tribunal authorized to make such determination, or called into question by a federal court’s writ of habeas corpus, 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Id.; see also Tavarez, 54 F.3d at 110 . In the case at bar, Feldman was arrested,
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that collateral estoppel applies to  1983 claims
B. recognizing that the heck deferred accrual rule applies to fourteenth amendment equal protection claims
C. holding that the public harm requirement applies to fraudulent inducement claims because the fraud claims arise from related contract claims
D. holding that sovereign immunity also applies to cross claims and third party claims
E. holding that heck applies to bivens claims
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.