Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
have been exhausted. By the same token, the federal habeas tolling provision should not be invoked except when a federal claim remains unexhausted in state court. Tolling is the complement of the exhaustion requirement. We hold, therefore, that a state petition for post-conviction or other collateral review must present a federally cognizable claim for it to toll the statute of limitations pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(2). Austin’s post-conviction complaint regarding the missing language of his indictment failed to satisfy this requirement. However, his second complaint in the state post-conviction proceeding, regarding ineffective assistance of appellate counsel, does raise a federal constitutional claim. See Evitts v. Lucey, 469 U.S. 387, 396, 105 S.Ct. 830, 83 L.Ed.2d 821 (1985) . But, as noted above, it was filed in the
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding the sixth amendment right to effective assistance extends to a criminal defendants first appeal as of right
B. holding that the sixth amendment right to counsel embodies the right to effective assistance of counsel
C. recognizing that a criminal defendants right to counsel is the right to the effective assistance of counsel
D. holding that defendants are entitled to effective assistance of appellate counsel on their first appeal as of right
E. recognizing that the sixth amendment guarantees the right to effective assistance of counsel
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.