Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
Bailey v. State, 312 Ark. 180, 182, 848 S.W.2d 391, 392 (per curiam); see also Millsap v. Kelley, 2016 Ark. 406, at 2, 2016 WL 6803694 (per curiam). The trial court held that the motion was without merit and denied relief. Barnes lodged an appeal from the order in this court. Now before us are Barnes’s motions for extension of time to file the appellant’s brief, for appointment of counsel, and for a copy of the transcript lodged in this appeal. We dismiss the appeal because it is evident from the record that Barnes could not succeed on appeal. This court will not permit an appeal from an order that denied a petition for postconviction relief to go forward where it is clear that the appellant could not prevail. Justus v. State, 2012 Ark. 91, 2012 WL 664259. 9 S.W.3d 693 (per curiam) . Even though Barnes’s petition was signed and
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that second state petition for postconviction relief that was dismissed as an abuse of the writ was properly filed
B. holding that a petition to correct sentence was properly considered as a petition for postconviction relief pursuant to rule 371 because it challenged a judgment entered on a plea of guilty on grounds cognizable under the rule
C. holding that third state petition for postconviction relief that was dismissed as an abuse of the writ was properly filed
D. 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
E. holding that because the defendants challenge to his sentence implicated his plea agreement the defendants request must be construed as a petition for postconviction relief
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.