Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
district courts may expand the record in a case to include “additional materials relevant to the determination of the merits of the petition.” Rule 7, 2254 Rules. Indeed, the Advisory Committee Notes state that Rule 7’s purpose is to “eliminate some unnecessary hearings.” In accordance with Rule 7, therefore, Twill expand the record in this case to include Pursell’s mitigation evidence. This approach is consistent with Rule 7 and case law interpreting that provision. See, e.g., Jacobs v. Horn, 129 F.Supp.2d 390, 403 (M.D.Pa. 2001) (expanding the record on a claim for ineffective assistance based on trial counsel’s failure to introduce mitigating evi dence during the sentencing hearing when the facts were not in dispute); see also Woods v. Dugger, 923 F.2d 1454, 1460 (11th Cir.1991) . Admittedly, questions arise when courts use
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that there is no need for an evidentiary hearing when the petitioners habeas submissions demonstrate that the petitioner is conclusively entitled to relief in such circumstances an evidentiary hearing would be a waste of judicial resources
B. holding that such statements were not even enough for an evidentiary hearing
C. holding that due process requires an evidentiary hearing when parties submissions in contempt proceedings raise disputed issue of material fact
D. holding that the trial court did not need to conduct an evidentiary hearing when the dispute could be resolved as a matter of law
E. holding that an evidentiary hearing is not required if there are no factual issues in dispute
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.