With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". quoting Industrial Sugars, Inc. v. Standard Accident Ins. Co., 338 F.2d 673, 676 (7th Cir.1964); Affiliated FM Ins. Co. v. Beatrice Foods Co., 645 F.Supp. 298, 302 (N.D.Ill.1985). Plaintiff does not argue that he unintentionally violated Judge McGarr’s consent order and with good reason. The Seventh Circuit all but concluded that Plaintiff intentionally violated the consent order when it stated that “[t]he elaborate efforts that Ros-soff took to conceal the sale of the powder for therapeutic use show his consciousness that the form of the drug was immaterial.” Schering, 62 F.3d at 907. Rather, Plaintiff asserts that he did not violate the consent order at all. However, Plaintiff presented that claim to and it was rejected by the Seventh Circuit. See Schering, 62 F.3d at 907-08 (<HOLDING>). Thus, Plaintiff is barred by the doctrine of

A: holding that sentencing disparity between crack and powder cocaine is constitutional
B: holding that plaintiffs sale of gentamicin in powder form violated the consent order
C: holding consent not voluntary where police threatened to arrest defendants girlfriend if he refused to sign consent form
D: holding that a bankruptcy courts sale order is a final order for res judicata purposes
B.