Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
2005 proceedings. However, the written record of those proceedings reflects that Wolf waived his right to counsel. Therefore, the question is whether Chant’s procedural bar applies in cases where a defendant waives the right to counsel. [¶ 6.] Chant adopted the rule set forth in Custis v. United States, 511 U.S. 485, 114 S.Ct. 1732, 128 L.Ed.2d BIT (1994). Custis held that there was no right to collaterally attack the validity of prior convictions used for sentence enhancement “with the sole exception of convictions obtained in violation of the right to counsel[.]” Id. at 487, 114 S.Ct. at 1734. In discussing the nature of the right to counsel violations that would permit a collateral attack, the Supreme Court observed: “If the accused ... is not represented by cou -99 (10th Cir.2006) ; United States v. Dahler, 171 F.3d 441, 442
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that committee failed to carry its ultimate burden
B. holding that the burden of proving lack of negligence is on the owner
C. holding that the state had the burden of proving the defendants two prior convictions in order to obtain the felony dui conviction
D. holding that the defendant failed to carry his burden of proving the invalidity of the waivers of counsel for prior colorado convictions
E. holding that a defendant may challenge the validity of prior convictions during a sentencing hearing and that the burden to establish invalidity is on the challenging party
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.