Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
reads in pertinent part as follows: The at e and district court that Rule 11 does not govern state courts. See Miles v. Dorsey, 61 F.3d 1459, 1467 (10th Cir.1995) (explaining that Rule 11 does not apply in state courts). Therefore, it cannot be a basis on which to challenge a plea in a state court criminal proceeding. See Estelle v. McGuire, 502 U.S. 62, 67-68, 112 S.Ct. 475, 116 L.Ed.2d 385 (1991) ("[Fjederal habeas corpus relief does not lie for errors of state law.”). 3 . Holt also argued below that this violated the due process clause of the Sixth Amendment, but he failed to persist in that argument before this Court. So, as we discussed regarding Holt's claim that the state court judge’s actions violated Rule 11, we need not consider this argument. See Phillips, 422 F.3d at 1080
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that where issues are not properly raised and developed in briefs a court will not consider the merits thereof
B. holding courts do not consider points not raised in briefs
C. recognizing that we lack jurisdiction to consider issues not raised in the parties briefs
D. holding that we generally may not consider issues not raised before the bia
E. holding that we lack jurisdiction to consider claims that have not been raised before the bia
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.