Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
“look[ed] into this Court’s computer.” Id. at 5-6. To prevail under Rule 60(b)(2), “the movant must demonstrate that: (1) the newly discovered evidence is of facts that existed at the time of trial or other disposi tive proceeding; (2) the party seeking relief was justifiably ignorant of the evidence despite due diligence; (3) the evidence is admissible and is of such importance that it probably would have changed the outcome; and (4) the evidence is not merely cumulative or impeaching.” Duckworth v. U.S. ex rel. Locke, 808 F.Supp.2d 210, 216 (D.D.C.2011). Here, Walsh argues that his allegations have been confirmed by Edward Snowden. However, information that merely confirms Walsh’s assertions is not new information for the purposes of Rule 60(b)(2). See Duckworth, 808 F.Supp.2d at 216 . Rule 60(b) is not “a vehicle for presenting
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding error in admission of evidence is harmless when it was merely cumulative to other evidence in the record
B. holding that new evidence must be evidence that is not merely cumulative
C. holding impeachment evidence was not merely cumulative where the withheld evidence was of a different character than evidence already known to the defense
D. holding that to justify a new trial based upon newly discovered evidence 1 the evidence must have been discovered after trial 2 the failure to discover this evidence must not be attributable to a lack of due diligence on the part of the movant 3 the evidence must not be merely cumulative or impeaching 4 the evidence must be material and 5 the evidence must be likely to produce an acquittal if a new trial is granted
E. holding that material submitted by appellant that is cumulative of evidence previously of record is not new
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.