Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
ended up in, than it was with someone firing from where Robert Foley was standing. Had the bullet been fired from where Robert Foley was standing, one would expect to see a shallow groove running along the wall towards the hole where the bullet gradually entered, due to the oblique angle. There was no evidence that this was the case and, consequently, the hole is consistent with someone firing from approximately where Robert Foley alleged Lynn Vaughn was standing, towards where Robert Foley alleged Rodney Vaughn was located. “Newly discovered evidence is evidence that could not have been obtained at the time of trial through the exercise of reasonable diligence.” Commonwealth v. Harris, 250 S.W.3d 637, 642 (Ky.2008). See also Sanders v. Commonwealth, 339 S.W.3d 427, 437 (Ky.2011) . Certainly, testimony in the form of an
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that reconsideration may not be based on evidence and legal arguments that could have been presented at the time of the challenged decision
B. recognizing an exception to the twoyear time bar imposed on rule 3850 claims when the claim asserted is based on facts that were unknown to the movant and could not have been discovered through the exercise of due diligence
C. holding that cr 6002 allows appeals based upon claims of error that were unknown and could not have been known to the moving party by exercise of reasonable diligence and in time to have been otherwise presented to the court
D. holding substance of claim must have been presented to state court
E. holding that evidence which by due diligence could have been produced in the first proceeding is considered to have been available at the first proceeding and therefore will not preclude the application of collateral estoppel
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.