Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
trial is mandatory only when: (1) it is requested; (2) the matters raised in the motion and accompanying affidavit are not determinable from the record; and (3) the motion and affidavit establish reasonable grounds showing that the defendant could potentially be entitled to relief. Id. (citing Smith, 286 S.W.3d at 339; Martinez v. State, 74 S.W.3d 19, 21-22 (Tex.Crim.App.2002); Reyes v. State, 849 S.W.2d 812, 816 (Tex.Crim.App.2002); Edwards v. State, 37 S.W.3d 511 (Tex.App.—Texarkana 2001, pet. ref'd)). Even if the defendant meets the requirements for obtaining a hearing, however, the trial court is not required to allow live testimony at the hearing. Holden v. State, 201 S.W.3d 761, 764 (Tex.Crim.App.2006). Instead, that decision lies within the discretion of the trial court. See id. . We review a trial court’s denial of a hearing
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion in its ruling whether to proceed with a declaratory judgment action
B. holding trial court did not abuse its discretion by ruling based only on affidavits
C. holding that trial court did not abuse its discretion by granting such a temporary injunction
D. holding that district court did not abuse its discretion in reconsidering a prior interlocutory ruling
E. holding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion by refusing to disqualify an attorney based on a matter not raised by the opposing party until only weeks prior to trial
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.