Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
believe that an interlocutory appeal may be taken from a pretrial ruling in a criminal case that denies any relief sought on the basis of the Double Jeopardy Clause. We disagree. [A defendant] is not entitled to an interlocutory appeal to avoid whatever slight increment of strain, embarrassment, or expense might arise from having to defend against allegations made or evidence presented in connection with a court on which trial will in any event occur.”); United States v. Gulledge, 739 F.2d 582, 586 (11th Cir. 1984) (“Unlike the defendant in Abney, Gulledge will undergo a second trial regardless of our ruling .... Consequently, full protection of his fifth amendment right does not depend on appellate review at this time.”); United States v. Head, 697 F.2d 1200, 1205 (4th Cir. 1982) . Significantly, in this case, Pickering did
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding no jurisdiction under abney when appeal even if successful could only lessen and not wholly remove the possibility of conviction upon being again tried
B. holding that harmless error test is satisfied when there is no reasonable possibility that the error contributed to the conviction
C. holding that extraneous information which is unrelated to the case being tried is not prejudicial
D. holding that an error is harmless if there is no reasonable possibility that it contributed to the conviction
E. holding that there is no constitutional right to appeal a criminal conviction
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.