Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
that the district judge cannot analyze it and make his final decision in time to avert harm to the plaintiff due to delay, then the plaintiff can move for a preliminary injunction. That would be the kind of case in which a court of appeals might grant a stay of administrative action if that court was the first tier of judicial review of the agency’s action, rather than the district court. 5 U.S.C. § 705; Virginia Petroleum Jobbers Ass’n v. FPC, 259 F.2d 921 (D.C.Cir.1958); Busboom Grain Co. v. ICC, 830 F.2d [74,] 75 [(7th Cir.1987) ]. The standard is the same whether a preliminary injunction against agency action is being sought in the district court or a stay of that action is being sought in this court. Id.”); Ohio v. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 812 F.2d 288, 290 (6th Cir.1987) ; Kansas ex rel. Graves v. United States, 86
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that the standard for a motion for judgment on the pleadings is the same as the standard for a motion to dismiss
B. holding that a motion for a preliminary injunction and a hearing on that motion were insufficient to prevent the plaintiff from dismissing by notice
C. holding that the standard of review for the sufficiency of the evidence is the same as the standard for denying a motion for a directed verdict
D. holding that a motion for a  705 stay should be judged by the same standard as a motion for a preliminary injunction
E. holding that court can consider inadmissible evidence in the context of a motion for preliminary injunction
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.