Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
the waiver provision largely referred to “sentence” in the context of the term of imprisonment. See id. (discussing “probable sentencing range” and “sentence within the maximum provided in the statutes of conviction”). As such, we find the plea agreement’s waiver provision is ambiguous as to whether “sentence” includes the amount of restitution, or refers only to term of imprisonment. For example, on the one hand, restitution is part of “sentence” in the colloquial sense in that it is a determination for the district court after guilt has been adjudged. On the other hand, resti tution is not simply “imposed in accordance with the Sentencing Guidelines and Policy Statements” as the plea agreement specifies. J.A. 30 1Í 4; cf. United States v. Ready, 82 F.3d 551, 559-60 (2d Cir.1996) . Rather, Appellant’s challenge is levied
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that a similar omitted warning together with ambiguity as to the plea agreements recommended sentence constituted reversible error
B. holding that a waiver of right to appeal contained in a plea agreement is enforceable
C. holding that waiver of right to appeal sentence unless its was an upward departure barred appeal of sentence within guidelines range
D. holding that term any sentence within plea agreements waiver of right to appeal provision did not include restitution because of ambiguity
E. holding that a plea agreement with a waiver of direct appeal rights does not include a waiver of collateral remedies because the government could have included a waiver of collateral rights in the plea agreement and chose not to do so
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.