Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
be narrowly confined to its specifically enumerated areas of review. Commonwealth v. Judge, 591 Pa. 126, 916 A.2d 511, 520 (2007). Such narrow construction would be inconsistent with the legislative intent to channel post-conviction claims into the PCRA’s framework, id., and would instead create a bifurcated system of post-conviction review where some post-conviction claims are cognizable under the PCRA while others are not. Commonwealth v. Lantzy, 558 Pa. 214, 736 A.2d 564, 569-70 (1999). Instead, this Court has broadly interpreted the PCRA eligibility requirements as including within its ambit claims such as this one, regardless of the “truth-determining process” language that Appellee invokes from Section 9543(a) (2) (i). See Commonwealth v. Liebel, 573 Pa. 375, 825 A.2d 630 (2003) ; Commonwealth ex. rel. Dadario v. Goldberg,
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding claim is cognizable
B. holding that while batson claim was waived derivative claim that counsel was ineffective for failing to raise the batson claim is cognizable under the pcra
C. holding that claim alleging counsels ineffectiveness during the plea bargaining process is cognizable under the pcra
D. holding that claim challenging counsels effectiveness for failing to file a petition for allowance of appeal is cognizable under pcra
E. holding claim is not cognizable
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.