Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
As noted in the Advisory Committee notes to Rule 41(e) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, the district court has jurisdiction to hear motions “to compel [the] return of property obtained by an illegal search and seizure.” Fed. R.Crim.P. 41(e) advisory committee’s note. Moreover, the Third Circuit has found that its district courts have jurisdiction over third party motions for the return of property, see United States v. Frank, 763 F.2d 551, 552 (3d Cir.1985) (stating that the district court had jurisdiction to entertain a third party motion to determine who had entitlement to evidence after the criminal prosecution concluded), and that such jurisdiction exists even after the termination of the criminal proceedings, see United States v. McGlory, 202 F.3d 664, 670 (3d Cir.2000) ; Bein, 214 F.3d at 411 (finding that “[a]
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that the district court and this court had subject matter jurisdiction over the defendants motion for modification of sentence based on amendment 706 even though the defendant filed the motion before march 3 2008 because the district court ruled on the motion after that date
B. holding that motion for reconsideration would be construed not as a rule 60b motion but rather as an unauthorized successive motion under  2255 which the district court may have been without jurisdiction to consider
C. holding that rule 41e motion for return of seized property is treated as a civil equitable proceeding when criminal proceedings against moving party are not yet pending
D. holding that a district court has jurisdiction to consider  a rule 41e motion  filed after criminal proceedings had been completed
E. holding that a district court has jurisdiction to entertain a rule 41e motion for the return of property before a criminal prosecution has begun believing such a motion to be in effect a civil action
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.