Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
in a couple of scrapes, but had been fine in general and not a big trouble-maker. Defense counsel wanted the sheriff to testify because he was so well liked that ‘if he could say anything nice about Nathan, it couldn’t hurt anything.’ Specifically, defense counsel thought that Colbert could ‘humanize’ Slaton and they ‘felt like [if] the jury believed that the sheriff thought he was an OK kind of guy even though he was a prisoner, the jury — that some of that might be transferred to the jury.’ “From the nature of this testimony and the remarks of counsel during the Rule 32 hearing, it is clear that defense counsel knew how Sheriff Colbert would testify and that they wanted to call him to the stand for a valid, strategic purpose. See Waters v. Thomas, 46 F.3d 1506, 1512 (11th Cir.1995). Specifically, defense counsel wanted
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that federal courts must accept the decision of the states highest court even if it is an erroneous one
B. holding that the decision to pursue an all or nothing strategy was not patently unreasonable and accordingly that counsel was not ineffective in his strategic decision not to request a jury charge as to the lesserincluded offense
C. holding that this courts review is limited to the bia decision and the portions of the ijs decision that it expressly adopted
D. holding that evidence contrary to an administrators decision does not make the decision arbitrary and capricious so long as a reasonable basis appears for the decision
E. holding that the decision of which witness to call is the epitome of a strategic decision and it is one that we will seldom if ever second guess
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.