Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
permanent order to prevent the relocation. 4. A proceeding filed pursuant to this subsection must be filed within thirty (30) days of receipt of notice of a proposed relocation. K. The relocating person has the burden of proof that the proposed relocation is made in good faith. If that burden of proof is met, the burden shifts to the non-relocating person to show that the proposed relocation is not in the best interest of the child. 17 The first statute gives the custodial parent a "presumptive right" to relocate. Kaiser v. Kaiser, 2001 OK 30, ¶ 18, 23 P.3d 278, 282. The second statute requires notice of intent to relocate and provides for a hearing procedure if the non-custodial parent objects to relocation. Other than in Harrison v. Morgan, 2008 OK CIV APP 68, ¶ 15, 191 P.3d 617, 621 , there has been no effort to construe the
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that 18 usc  1919 did not implicitly repeal 18 usc  1001
B. holding that 28 usc  2636c did not modify the filing requirement in 19 usc  1516aa2a
C. holding that 10 usc  1201 is a moneymandating statute
D. holding section 10 of faa is procedural and does not preempt state common law
E. holding that section 1123 did not repeal 10 0s2011  19
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.