Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
DENYING CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY MICHAEL R. MURPHY, Circuit Judge. This matter is before the court on Keith Frazier’s pro se requests for a certifícate of appealability (“COA”) and to proceed on appeal in forma pauperis. Frazier seeks a COA so he can appeal the district court’s dismissal, on the basis of lack of subject matter jurisdiction, of his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A) (providing no appeal may be taken from a “final order in a habeas corpus proceeding in which the detention complained of arises out of process issued by a State court” unless the petitioner first obtains a COA); Montez v. McKinna, 208 F.3d 862, 869 (10th Cir.2000) . We grant Frazier’s motion to proceed on
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that  2253c1a applies when a state habeas petitioner proceeds under  2241
B. holding that a  2241 petitioners claim was not cognizable under  2241 and therefore the district court lacked jurisdiction
C. holding  2253clas coa requirement applies to state prisoners proceeding under  2241 when the petition relates to any of the incidents and circumstances of any detention pursuant to state court process
D. holding that a petitioner may not circumvent the requirements of the aedpa by filing a section 2241 petition
E. holding that  2253clas requirements apply when a state habeas petitioner is proceeding under  2241
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.