Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
See Petitioner Sprint’s Br. at 28 (citing Declaratory Ruling, 17 F.C.C.R. at 13,198-99). Sprint claims that these historical observations are somehow preclusive, in that they may influence the district court’s judgment on the contract claim or be cited by other IXCs who refuse to pay Sprint’s access charges. It is clear that the passages from the Declaratory Ruling cited by Sprint are merely descriptive statements by the agency, not legal conclusions. The statements have no force of law, so they cannot conclusively cause the adverse collateral consequences suggested by Sprint. In short, Sprint is quibbling over FCC observations that have no binding effect whatsoever. This is never a basis for review in this court. Cf. Panhandle E. Pipe Line Co. v. FERC, 198 F.3d 266 (D.C.Cir.1999) . Sprint further argues that the FCC
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that chevron deference is due only when the agency acts pursuant to delegated authority and the agency action has the force of law
B. holding that the supreme court has final appellate review of agency decisions
C. holding that a decision is final when it leaves nothing more for the court to do
D. holding that there is nothing for a court to review when an agency has never issued a final and binding judgment that has the force of law
E. holding an agency decision is not final during the time the agency considers a petition for review
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.