Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
but simply raise the correctness of a discretionary administrative decision in the facts of a single claimant’s case.”). Thus, the district court did not abuse its discretion when it declined to review the Appeal Panel’s determination that LTCF and Film Production Capital were the same entity. B. LTCF further argues that the CSSP chose an inappropriate NAICS code. However, the determination of the appropriate NAICS code for a single entity claimant is not the type of “pressing question” that warrants district court review. See Claimant ID 100212278, 848 F.3d at 410. Rather, it is precisely the type of discretionary factual determination that we have held the district court need not review. See In re Deepwater Horizon, 641 Fed.Appx. at 410; cf. Claimant ID 100212278, 848 F.3d at 410-11 . Even assuming that the CSSP’s determination
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that the appropriate standard of review is abuse of discretion
B. holding that district court did not abuse discretion by denying review of factual determination that claimants stores were not tourism businesses within the meaning of the settlement agreement
C. holding that trial court did not abuse its discretion by denying motion for continuance when not in proper affidavit form
D. holding that a sentencing determination will not be disturbed on appeal absent an abuse of discretion by the district court
E. recognizing that we review the sentence imposed by a district court under the abuse of discretion standard
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.