Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
pursuing an alibi defense. The Court finds Respondent’s arguments to be without merit. The Supreme Court’s landmark decision in Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984), qualifies as “clearly established federal law” under 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d). See Williams, 529 U.S. at 391, 120 S.Ct. 1495. Thus, if Petitioner can show that the Michigan courts adjudicated his failure to investigate claim in a manner contrary to Strickland, he is entitled to habeas relief. To be successful on an ineffective assistance of counsel claim, Strickland requires that two elements be proven. First, a petitioner must demonstrate that his attorney’s performance was deficient. Strickland, 466 U.S. at 687, 104 S.Ct. 2052; see also Combs v. Coyle, 205 F.3d 269, 278 (6th Cir.2000) . To prove a deficiency, a petitioner must show
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding on the basis of the highly discretionary nature of the decisions hud must make in the course of administering loans it has insured or taken by assignment that judicial review of huds decision to foreclose should be deferential
B. holding that strict scrutiny applies
C. recognizing scrutiny on statutory grounds stated in  10a and scrutiny for whether the award evinces a manifest disregard of applicable law
D. holding that judicial scrutiny of attorney performance must be highly deferential
E. holding that regardless of the parties agreement to the contrary district courts must review an arbitrators findings of fact and conclusions of law under the highly deferential standard set forth in 9 usc  10a
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.