Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
Marion Barry. Nevertheless, as the district court found, these desires do not constitute implied promises. Ahn acknowledges that a promise of secrecy was not expressed in the plea agreement. The agreement did, however, include an integration clause, which specifically stated that no other agreements or promises existed between the parties. Standing alone, such a clause would be strong evidence that no implied promises existed' — after all, integration clauses “establish that the written plea bargain was ‘adopted by the parties as a complete and exclusive statement of the terms of the agreement.’ ” United States v. Fentress, 792 F.2d 461, 464 (4th Cir. 1986) (quoting Restatement (Second) of Contracts § 210 (1981)); accord United States v. Hunt, 205 F.3d 931, 935 (6th Cir.2000) ; United States v. Alegria, 192 F.3d 179, 185
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that a waiver of right to appeal contained in a plea agreement is enforceable
B. holding that where a criminal defendant has voluntarily and knowingly entered into a plea agreement in which he or she waives the right to appeal the defendant is not entitled to resentencing in light of booker 
C. holding a party breaches a plea agreement by acting in a manner not specifically prohibited by the agreement but still incompatible with explicit promises made in the agreement
D. holding that promises made in a plea agreement could violate 18 usc  201c
E. holding that a merger clause normally prevents a criminal defendant who has entered into a plea agreement from asserting that the government made oral promises to him not contained in the plea agreement itself
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.