Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
The defendant also argues that this appeal raises an issue of first impression for the appellate courts of this state, namely, whether a court has jurisdiction over a motion for contempt after a once delinquent obligor comes into compliance before a hearing. We note, however, that this court addressed a strikingly similar argument in Rocque v. Design Land Developers of Milford, Inc., 82 Conn. App. 361,844 A.2d 882 (2004). In Rocque, the defendant had argued that “the court had no jurisdiction to consider the motion [for contempt] because the defendant, at the time [of the hearing], was in compliance. In its memorandum of decision, the [trial] court ‘emphatically’ disagreed, stating that ‘[t]he court has continuing jurisdiction to enforce its orders an onn. 725, 737, 444 A.2d 196 (1982) . Although the trial court found the
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. recognizing the inherent power of the courts to issue warrants
B. recognizing inherent power of courts of appeals
C. recognizing a trial courts inherent authority to dismiss a cause of action with prejudice for violations of court orders
D. holding that the inherent power of the district court includes the power  to santion attorneys for  violations of court orders or other conduct which interferes with the courts power to manage its calendar and the courtroom  
E. recognizing the inherent power of the court to coerce compliance with its orders
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.