Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
and related services). Once Cherrix made a showing that DNA testing is “reasonably necessary” to his habeas petition, this Court had the discretion to provide for funds for testing or discovery that may be necessary to support the habeas petition. Cherrix has satisfied the standard of this and other courts for demonstrating that investigative services are “reasonably necessary.” This Circuit has stated that the services of an expert are reasonably necessary if either: (a) the services are needed to prepare the claims in the habeas petition, or to obtain evidence not yet acquired to support a claim in the habeas petition; or (b) the habeas petition raises claims entitling the petitioner to a hearing at which such expert would testify. See Lawson v. Dixon, 3 F.3d 743, 753 (4th Cir.1993) . As will be explained in great detail herein,
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that because the petitioner had already filed a rule 371 petition he was barred from submitting a subsequent petition under that rule and his petition was subject to dismissal on that basis regardless of the label he placed on it
B. holding that the habeas petition did not qualify for equitable tolling because the petitioner discovered that his attorney had lied about filing a petition in early 2008 and yet the petitioner did not file one himself until nearly two years later
C. holding that an appeal was not moot because the amendment to the ordinance at bar did not give the petitioner the relief sought so that the petitioners claim and injury remain viable
D. holding that habeas petitioner did not need services of psychiatrist because i petitioner had already filed his petition and so did not need psychiatrist to prepare his claims and ii psychiatrist had already formed an opinion on the elements of petitioners claim so petitioner had already acquired the evidence sought
E. holding that the state court ruling was objectively unreasonable where prosecution failed to present sufficient evidence that the petitioner murdered a known drug dealer although the state established that the petitioner planned to rob drug dealers for drugs or money the victim was a known drug dealer who kept drugs in his freezer and that freezer was open and empty after the homicide the petitioner and the victim had engaged in drug transactions in the past the petitioner had a motive because he had seen the victim make a pass at the petitioners girlfriend and the petitioner had possessed and once purchased the murder weapon and a similar gun was seen in his home two weeks before the murder evidence placing the petitioner at the scene was conspicuously absent leaving only a reasonable speculation that the petitioner was present
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.