Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
514 U.S. at 655, 115 S.Ct. 1671; Dillingham, 519 U.S. at 325, 117 S.Ct. 832; Rice, 331 U.S. at 230, 67 S.Ct. 1146. 37 . Greater Wash. Bd. of Trade, 506 U.S. at 130, 113 S.Ct. 580. 38 . See ERISA § 206(d)(1), 29 U.S.C. § 1056(d)(1); cf. Mackey v. Lanier Collection Agency & Serv., 486 U.S. 825, 829, 108 S.Ct. 2182, 100 L.Ed.2d 836 (1988) (concluding that a general state garnishment statute’s application to employee welfare benefits was not preempted by ERISA because ERISA was silent about enforcement mechanisms for money judgments whereas ERISA explicitly prohibited assignment of pension benefits). 39 . See Hermann Hosp. v. MEBA Med. & Benefits Plan, 845 F.2d 1286, 1289 & n. 13 (5th Cir.1988). 40 . See LeTourneau Lifelike Orthotics & Prosthetics, Inc., 298 F.3d 348, 352 (5th Cir.2002) ; see also Physicians Multispecialty Group v.
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that constructive amendments which are per se reversible under harmless error analysis are also per se reversible under plain error analysis
B. holding that violation of state law was not a per se constitutional violation
C. holding that antiassignment provisions are not per se invalid as applied to health care providers
D. holding such agreements to be per se illegal
E. holding that to be preempted as a per se illegal hybrid restraint a regulation must involve a delegation of market power to private parties that is per se illegal because otherwise the hybrid restraint could not be attacked as facially invalid
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.