Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
§ 2254’s exhaustion requirement, but, more importantly for our purposes, also constitutes an adjudication on the merits that is ripe for federal habeas review. See Comer v. Schriro, 463 F.3d 934, 956 (9th Cir.2006) (concluding, for purposes of federal habeas review, that a claim is exhausted and ripe for review on the merits if, under "Arizona’s fundamental error review ... the state appellate court ... mentions it is considering the claim sua sponte ”), withdrawn on other grounds, Comer v. Stewart, 471 F.3d 1359 (9th Cir.2006) (granting rehearing en banc to consider whether to grant state habeas petitioner’s motion to voluntarily dismiss the federal habeas proceedings); Moormann v. Schriro, 426 F.3d 1044, 1057 (9th Cir.2005); Walton v. Caspari, 916 F.2d 1352, 1356-57 (8th Cir.1990) ; Cooper v. Wainwright, 807 F.2d 881, 887 (11th
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that appellate court may raise issues of default sua sponte where necessary to protect inter alia the finality of federal criminal judgments
B. holding that a district court has the discretion to raise a  2254 timeliness consideration sua sponte
C. holding that a state appellate courts decision to raise and answer a constitutional question sua sponte permits subsequent federal habeas review
D. recognizing every federal appellate court has a special obligation to consider its own jurisdiction even if it must do so sua sponte
E. holding that the court can raise res judicata sua sponte even on appeal
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.