Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
good cause is not shown. See In re Madar, 218 B.R. 382, 383 n. 1 (Bankr.E.D.Mich. 1998); Byrd, 94 F.3d at 219. Since Madar was decided, the Sixth Circuit has reaffirmed Byrd. See Catz v. Chalker, 142 F.3d 279, 289 n. 10 (6th Cir.1998), amended, 243 F.3d 234 (6th Cir.2001); Leisure v. State of Ohio, No. 00-4569, 2001 WL 700866, at *1 (6th Cir. June 11, 2001). Because the latter case is unpublished, it has no precedential force. See, e.g., Salamalekis v. Commissioner of Soc. Security, 221 F.3d 828, 833 (6th Cir. 2000). As in Byrd, the Sixth Circuit in Catz simply assumed without discussion that Rule 4(m) requires a finding of good cause. Thus neither case is binding. See Madar, 218 B.R. at 383 n. 1; see also Wise v. Department of Defense, 196 F.R.D. 52, 56 (S.D.Ohio 1999) (Rice, J.) ; Slenzka v. Landstar Ranger, Inc., 204 F.R.D.
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that rule 4m permits extensions in the absence of good cause and explicitly declining to follow catz or byrd
B. holding invalid procedurally defective interim regulations that were issued without notice and comment and in the absence of good cause
C. holding that an extension of time in which to serve process may be granted despite the absence of good cause
D. holding lack of prejudice to the defendant is not good cause
E. recognizing controversy over the continuing use of catalyst theory but explicitly declining to rule on it
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.