Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
v. Rushen, 705 F.2d 355, 357 (9th Cir.1983) (quoting Powell v. Spalding, 679 F.2d 163, 166 (9th Cir.1982)). We are not persuaded that the trial court committed such an error. The Eighth Circuit considered a similar situation in Futrell v. Wyrick, 716 F.2d 1207 (8th Cir.1983). There, an unsuccessful habeas petitioner claimed that the introduction of police mugshots at his trial violated his due process rights. The court of appeals disagreed. “The manner in which the photographs were introduced,” the court found, “was unexceptionable. The photographs were never referred to as ‘mugshots’ and all police data was removed from them.” Id. at 1208. Thus, their introduction did not violate notions of fundamental fairness. Id.; see also United States v. Terry, 760 F.2d 939, 944 (9th Cir.1985) . The photographs in Reiger’s case did not
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding the immigration judges denial of a continuance request did not constitute an abuse of discretion
B. holding failure to exercise discretion is abuse of discretion
C. holding that introduction of mugshots containing no incriminating police data was not an abuse of the district court judges discretion
D. holding abuse of discretion is established if district court decision was based on an error of law
E. holding that the judges restriction of the class was not an abuse of discretion
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.