Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
was a convicted felon, and allow the State to parade the defendant’s prior felony history before the jury, over objection by the defendant, was an abuse of discretion and deprived defendant of his fundamental right to a fair trial. (A96) (emphasis added). Reviewing this sentence in the context of the arguments made in Petitioner’s Opening Brief, the Court likewise concludes that it is insufficient to put the state supreme court on notice that Petitioner was raising a federal constitutional claim. As the Court noted, Petitioner did not analyze his claim in constitutional terms and his reference to Old Chief as not binding on the state courts undermines Petitioner’s argument that he raised a federal constitutional claim. See e.g. Bright v. Snyder, 218 F.Supp.2d 573, 578-579 (D.Del.2002) . In addition, the Court finds further support
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that because defense counsel failed to alert the trial court that he was requesting relief based on a violation of defendants constitutional rights due process argument was not preserved for appellate review
B. holding that petitioner did not exhaust his due process claim that he was denied a full and fair hearing by arguing that due process was violated on the ground that the ij admitted uncertified evidence
C. holding that the petitioners due process claim that he was denied a full and fair hearing because the immigration judge was biased was the kind of procedural error that required exhaustion
D. holding that petitioners reliance on a case which concluded that a defendants right to a fair trial was violated was insufficient to place court on notice that petitioner was advancing a constitutional due process claim because the decision was based on state law
E. holding that notice of judgment was insufficient
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.