Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
the district court’s denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition, challenging his guilty plea conviction and sentence for conspiracy to manufacture and distribute methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1) and 846; and manufacturing methamphetamine, in violation of § 841(a)(1) and 18 U.S.C. § 2. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2253. Reviewing de novo, see Tripati v. Henman, 843 F.2d 1160, 1162 (9th Cir.1988), we affirm. Brees may not challenge his conviction or sentence pursuant to a § 2241 petition because he has failed to demonstrate that any remedy pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 is inadequate or ineffective to test the legality of his detention. Moore v. Reno, 185 F.3d 1054, 1055 (9th Cir.1999) (per curiam); see Lorentsen v. Hood, 223 F.3d 950, 953 (9th Cir.2000) . Accordingly, the district court properly
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that a district court lacks jurisdiction to review a second or successive  2255 motion where the movant failed to obtain authorization to file the motion from this court
B. recognizing that   2241 is not available under the inadequateorineffectiveremedy escape hatch of  2255 merely because the court of appeals refuses to certify a second or successive motion under the gatekeeping provisions of  2255
C. holding that district court has no jurisdiction to decide unauthorized second or successive  2255 claims
D. holding premagwood that where a first  2255 motion was granted so movant could file a direct appeal the second  2255 motion was not a successive motion under aedpa
E. holding that a prisoner cannot use the savings clause of 28 usc  2241 to escape the restrictions on successive  2255 motions and the failure to raise an available claim earlier
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.