Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
of Corr., 364 Fed.Appx. 499, 500 (10th Cir.2010). On September 19, 2014, after additional state-court proceedings, Mr. Chase filed a second § 2254 application in federal district court again asserting ineffective assistance of counsel with respect to his plea. He supported his argument with alleged new law—Lafler v. Cooper, — U.S. -, 132 S.Ct. 1376, 182 L.Ed.2d 398 (2012). The district court dismissed the application for lack of jurisdiction and denied a COA, determining that the application was second or successive. The court declined to transfer the application to this court because Lafler did not announce a new rule of constitutional law and therefore it would not apply retroactively to Mr. Chase’s conviction. See In re Graham, 714 F.3d 1181, 1182-83 (10th Cir.2013) (per curiam) . Mr. Chase now seeks a COA from us. He asserts
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding ineffectivetrialassistance claim may be brought in 28 usc  2255 proceeding regardless of whether claim could have been raised on direct appeal
B. holding that a claim under booker does not fit within the savings clause of 28 usc  2255
C. holding that constitutional claims are extraneous resentencing issues that a court cannot address during a  3582c2 proceeding and that a defendant is entitled to raise constitutional challenges to a sentence by making a collateral attack under 28 usc  2255
D. holding that equitable tolling is available for petitions filed pursuant to 28 usc  2255
E. holding in 28 usc  2255 proceeding that lafler does not establish new rule of constitutional law
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.