Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
issue when applying the Rooker-Feldman doctrine is whether the claim at issue is 'inextricably intertwined' with the state court judgment.” Abboud, 232 B.R. at 798. This is not accurate. The Rooker-Feld-man doctrine bars consideration not only of issues actually presented to and decided by a state court, but also bars consideration of claims that are "inextricably intertwined” with issues ruled upon by the state court. Feldman, 460 U.S. at 483-84 n. 16, 103 S.Ct. 1303; see Facio, 929 F.2d at 543. Analysis of whether a claim is "inextricably intertwined” with a state court judgment is necessary only if the claim before the federal court was not raised in the state court. Feldman, 460 U.S. at 483-84 n. 16, 103 S.Ct. 1303; Facio, 929 F.2d at 543; see Kiowa Indian Tribe, 150 F.3d at 1169 . In this case, the statute of limitations
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that issue preclusion extends to a matter that the court must necessarily albeit implicitly have decided
B. holding that appellate court may only review issues actually presented to and considered by the trial court
C. holding that law of the case acts as a bar only when the issue in question was actually considered and decided by the first court
D. holding that representation issues are matters relegated to the board representation issues may not be decided by contract and thus may not be decided by an arbitrator
E. recognizing that inextricably intertwined analysis extends to issues not actually decided by the state court
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.