Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
demonstrate cause for her trial counsel’s failure to raise her continuity of counsel claim, she has failed to make the requisite showing of prejudice. We thus affirm the denial of relief. A. Cause Harris advances two reasons why there is cause for her trial counsel’s failure to raise the continuity of counsel claim. She first argues that the lack of continuity of counsel itself supplies cause to excuse the default. Although this may explain why some of her lawyers failed to raise the claim—that is, they held appointments only for a matter of days or weeks—ultimately her assertion begs the question why Bowen and Argo, who tried the case, failed to raise the claim during the months they represented Harris (Argo for about 12 and Bowen for about 6). See Ex parte Harris, 947 So.2d at 1149 . Harris’s second, related, argument for why
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. recognizing a constitutional claim for ineffective assistance of counsel
B. holding that harris defaulted her claim because bowen and argo had at least nine months in which to consider whether the fact that harris had been represented by so many different pretrial attorneys amounted to ineffective assistance
C. holding that for an ineffective assistance of counsel claim to be established a defendant must show that but for counsels error the outcome of his proceedings would have been different
D. holding that where the record supported the district courts conclusion that statements would not have been suppressed and there had been nothing submitted on appeal to lead to a different conclusion the petitioner had not shown any resulting prejudice from the failure to file a motion to suppress and therefore had not established a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel
E. holding that counsels total failure to conduct pretrial discovery constituted ineffective assistance
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.