Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
612 (N.D.Iowa 1972) (stating that “absent other considerations” it would be unreasonable to allow the filing of a Rule 60(b)(6) motion based upon perjury of a third-party witness more than one year after entry of judgment). Like the plaintiff in Lester, Swanson seeks to vacate the judgment because Donna, a third-party witness, committed perjury. Swanson did not file his motion, however, until nearly 32 months after the entry of the judgment in this case. Swanson’s motion thus would be untimely if Jones, rather than Donna, committed perjury. And like the court in Lester, the court here finds no reason to treat Donna’s testimony differently than Jones’s testimony. The court thus finds that Swanson’s motion was not filed in a reasonable amount of time. See also Middleton, 388 F.3d at 614 . Swanson attempts to distinguish Lester by
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that a 13 month delay was unreasonable
B. holding threeyear delay without mitigating circumstances was unreasonable
C. holding that a five month delay was unreasonable
D. holding that a 26month delay was a period of time which constitutes a patently unreasonable delay absent mitigating circumstances
E. holding that a six month delay was unreasonable
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.