Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
the prosecutor explained in closing arguments, Farris testified that she saw the money just after 5:18 p.m., which means he had not yet purchased any drugs. Instead, as the prosecutor asserted, the more likely scenario is that Gipson called Harper at 5:15 p.m. to tell Harper that Ricks would making the delivery. 11 . In his appeal brief Gipson relies on the Ohio Court of Appeals decision in Ricks’s trial, which found that Ricks arrived between 4:00 and 5:00 p.m., see State v. Ricks, 196 Ohio App.3d 798, 965 N.E.2d 1018, 1021 (2011), rev’d 136 Ohio St.3d 356, 995 N.E.2d 1181 (2013). But this evidence was not before the Ohio Court of Appeals in this case, and therefore may not be considered in evaluating the reasonableness of its decision. See Cullen, 563 U.S. at 180-82, 131 S.Ct. 1388 . 12 . This further included several meetings
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that aedpa only applies where the state court adjudicated the constitutional issue on the merits
B. holding that aedpa limits a federal habeas court to the record before the state court where a claim has been adjudicated on the merits by the state court
C. holding that review under  2254d1 is limited to the record before the state court that adjudicated the claim on the merits rejecting the petitioners claim that the federal habeas court could consider evidence introduced in an evidentiary hearing
D. holding that a state courts rejection of petitioners habeas claim was unreasonable under  2254d2 where the court made credibility determinations on the basis of a paper record without an evidentiary hearing
E. holding that the federal habeas corpus court could reach the merits of a due process claim even though there was no contemporaneous objection in state court trial where the state habeas corpus court reached the merits rather than rely on the procedural default defense
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.