Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
error that had a “ ‘substantial and injurious [effect or influence’ ” on the outcome of the proceedings. McKenna, 65 F.3d at 1490 (quoting Brecht v. Abrahamson, 507 U.S. 619, 627, 113 S.Ct. 1710, 123 L.Ed.2d 353 (1993)). The state court’s factual findings are entitled to deference, 28 U.S.C. § 2254, and the district court’s factual findings are reviewed for clear error. McKenna, 65 F.3d at 1490. Also important to our analysis is the posture of this case, which comes to us on collateral review of Lopez’s conviction in state court, not on direct review of a conviction in federal district court. In this context, our inquiry is limited to whether Lopez was sentenced in violation of the United States Constitution. See Smith v. Phillips, 455 U.S. 209, 221, 102 S.Ct. 940, 71 L.Ed.2d 78 (1982) . Quoting from Cupp v. Naughten, 414 U.S. 141,
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that a federally issued writ of habeas corpus  reaches only convictions obtained in violation of some provision of the united states constitution
B. holding that threeyear statute of limitations was not an unconstitutional suspension of the writ of habeas corpus
C. holding that a writ of habeas corpus cannot be used to review the weight of evidence  
D. holding that managing conservator while in texas to seek return of child by writ of habeas corpus may not be served with civil process and is subject to jurisdiction of court in which habeas corpus is pending and only for purpose of prosecuting writ of habeas corpus
E. holding that a writ of habeas corpus cannot be used to review the weight of evidence 
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.