Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
Court’s] jurisprudence” and that a “burden of production” is placed on the party seeking to rebut the presumption of regularity). Moreover, under settled Virginia law, “[p]rior convictions may be proved by any competent evidence.” Perez v. Commonwealth, 274 Va. 724, 730, 652 S.E.2d 95, 98 (2007) (emphasis added) (citing Palmer v. Commonwealth, 269 Va. 203, 207, 609 S.E.2d 308, 310 (2005)); see also Wilson v. Commonwealth, 40 Va.App. 250, 254, 578 S.E.2d 831, 833 (2003). Evidence is competent for purposes of proving a prior conviction when that evidence requires “[n]o conjecture or surmise ... to reach [the] conclusion” that the defendant had indeed been convicted of the predicate offense or offenses. Perez, 274 Va. at 730, 652 S.E.2d at 98; cf. Palmer, 269 Va. at 207, 609 S.E.2d at 310 ; Overbey v. Commonwealth, 271 Va. 231, 234,
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that a court may not engage in conjecture or surmise in determining the offense for which a defendant was convicted
B. holding that a nonmovant cannot defeat a motion for summary judgment merely  on the basis of conjecture or surmise
C. holding a finding of fact by the commission may not be based upon surmise conjecture or speculation but must be founded on evidence of sufficient substance to afford a reasonable basis for it
D. holding that a factual finding must be supported by more than mere surmise or suspicion
E. holding a claimant must prove entitlement to benefits by the preponderance of the evidence which is not sustained by mere surmise or conjecture
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.