Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
Bar, 59 So.3d 29, 39 (Ala.2010). We further stated: ‘When the Board issues its new order, Cooner will have an opportunity to challenge the judgment” through a postjudgment motion. 59 So.3d at 41. The Board issued a new order of disbarment, but Cooner did not file a post-judgment motion. We twice more remanded the Board’s order for the entry of a more specific order and ultimately affirmed, without an opinion, the Board’s order of disbarment. Cooner v. Alabama State Bar, 145 So.3d 1 (Ala.2013) (on return to second remand). After this Court had affirmed the Board’s order, Cooner filed with the Board a “Motion for New Trial, to Alter, Amend or Vacate, or Alternatively to Open the Disciplinary Board’s Order.” The Board, citing this Court’s affirmance of Cooner’s disbarment .Civ.App.2003) ; and Superior Sec. Serv., Inc. v. Azalea City
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that a postjudgment motion to incorporate a sanction as part of the final judgment is a motion to modify the judgment and extends the trial courts jurisdiction
B. holding that postjudgment application for intervention was timely
C. holding that absent a timely postjudgment motion the trial court has no jurisdiction to alter amend or vacate a final judgment
D. holding that a motion to continue a hearing on a postjudgment motion was ineffective to extend the period for the trial court to rule on the motion absent the express consent of the parties
E. holding that courts may not alter waive or amend the filing deadline
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.