Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
U.S.C. § 2241 application for a writ of habeas corpus. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A) (stating no appeal may be taken from a “final order in a habeas corpus proceeding in which the detention complained of arises out of process issued by a State court” until an applicant obtains a COA); Montez v. McKinna, 208 F.3d 862, 869 (10th Cir.2000) (stating § 2253(c)(l)(A)’s requirements apply when a state habeas applicant is proceeding under § 2241). Exercising jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, we deny a COA and dismiss this matter. I.BACKGROUND Mr. Haff is a pretrial detainee at the Denver County Jail. He filed a § 2241 application for a writ of habeas corpus, urging the federal district court to stop the state criminal prosecution. See Walck v. Edmondson, 472 F.3d 1227, 1235 (10th Cir.2007) . The § 2241 application asserted five claims:
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that motion challenging pretrial detention was excludable under act
B. holding   2241 is the proper avenue by which to challenge pretrial detention
C. holding that  2241 was the proper statute for the petitioners pretrial double jeopardy challenge
D. holding that a  2241 petitioners claim was not cognizable under  2241 and therefore the district court lacked jurisdiction
E. recognizing that habeas corpus is a proper means to challenge the legality of pretrial detention under the jimmy ryce act
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.