Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
Court held that, “[ojther than the fact of a prior conviction, any fact that increases the penalty for a crime beyond the prescribed statutory maximum must be submitted to a jury, and proved beyond a reasonable doubt.” 530 U.S. at 490, 120 S.Ct. 2348. The issue of retroactivity turns on whether the rule is considered procedural or substantive. While substantive rules are automatically applied retroactively, holdings dictating methods of criminal procedure, such as the Apprendi holding, are presumptively non-retroactive. See Rosario v. United States, No. 00 Civ. 9695, 2001 WL 1006641, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Aug.30, 2001); Teague v. Lane, 489 U.S. 288, 310, 109 S.Ct. 1060, 103 L.Ed.2d 334 (1989); see also Bousley v. United States, 523 U.S. 614, 619-20, 118 S.Ct. 1604, 140 L.Ed.2d 828 (1998) . A majority of the courts that have considered
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that new rules of criminal procedural are generally not retroactive
B. holding that procedural rules are presumptively nonretroactive
C. holding that belowguidelines sentence is presumptively reasonable
D. holding rules of appellate procedure are obviously procedural in nature
E. holding that sentences within the guideline range are presumptively reasonable
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.