Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
Cyr, 533 U.S. at 314 n. 38, 121 S.Ct. 2271 (“Congress could, without raising any constitutional questions, provide an adequate substitute [for habeas corpus] through the courts of appeals.”). An adequate substitute for habeas corpus must fulfill the traditional role of the writ, which is to give the petitioner “a meaningful opportunity to demonstrate that he is being held pursuant to ‘the erroneous application or interpretation of relevant law.’ ” Boumediene v. Bush, — U.S. -, 128 S.Ct. 2229, 2266, 171 L.Ed.2d 41 (2008) (quoting St. Cyr, 533 U.S. at 302, 121 S.Ct. 2271). A petition for review with the court of appeals constitutes “an adequate substitute for district court habeas corpus jurisdiction.” Puri, 464 F.3d at 1042; see also Mohamed v. Gonzales, 477 F.3d 522, 526 (8th Cir.2007) ; Alexandre v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 452 F.3d 1204,
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that substantive review is adequate
B. holding that because the real id act created a remedy as broad in scope as a habeas petition the act is an adequate substitute for habeas corpus
C. holding that a petition for review is an adequate substitute for habeas corpus
D. holding that managing conservator while in texas to seek return of child by writ of habeas corpus may not be served with civil process and is subject to jurisdiction of court in which habeas corpus is pending and only for purpose of prosecuting writ of habeas corpus
E. holding that the remedy of habeas corpus is not available as a substitute for postconviction relief under rule 3850
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.