Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
Grenvik, we may not presume that he was represented. Defendant misperceives the nature of a “silent” record. In each of the cases in which we or the Supreme Court have held that the defendant made a prima facie showing from a silent record, a record of the prior proceeding existed but either made no reference to an attorney or contained documents on which spaces for the name of the defendant’s attorney were left blank. See, e.g., Grenvik, 291 Or at 102; Riggins, 180 Or App at 532; State v. Manfredonia, 105 Or App 537, 539, 805 P2d 738 (1991). In other words, the record existed, but its silence on the subject of the defendant’s representation constituted circumstantial evidence from which the court could infer that the defendant was unrepresented. See Manfredonia, 105 Or App at 540 . Where, as here, the record of proceedings in
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that there is an inference from the existence of a blank for the name of defendants lawyer and from the absence of any evidence to the contrary that defendant was not represented by counsel
B. holding there was no evidence to support the existence of any alleged fiduciary duty
C. holding that where the record shows defendant was represented by counsel and the conviction is valid on its face the defendant is precluded from attempting to undermine the validity of that conviction by collateral attack
D. holding that counsel was not deficient in failing to call a witness where the defendant never provided the witnesss name to counsel and no evidence existed that counsel had any notice of the witnesss identity
E. holding that defendant was denied counsel even though his lawyer asked another defendants lawyer to take notes or whatever in the defendants lawyers temporary absence
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.