Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
Petitions for Judgments of Separate Courts. A petitioner who seeks relief from judgments of more than one state court must file a separate petition covering the judgment or judgments of each court. The amendment to the rule is purely semantic, as the change was “intended to be stylistic and no substantive change [was] intended, except [changes not affecting this provision].” Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States District Courts, Rule 2, Rule 2 advisory committee’s notes on 2004 Amendments. 6 . Our holding is consistent with the principle, well-recognized as a matter of both federal and state jurisprudence, that resentencing does not affect the finality of the original judgment of conviction. See, e.g., United States v. Sanders, 247 F.3d 139, 144 (4th Cir.2001) . The same rule obtains as a matter of Florida
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding resentencing does not affect the date on which the judgment  of conviction became final
B. holding that a conviction is deemed final on the date of sentencing when there is no evidence that notice of appeal was filed
C. holding that the date on which the plaintiff learned of the defendants denial of tenure not the date on which the plaintiff became unemployed was when the statute of limitations began to run
D. holding that interest does not begin to accrue until the date of judgment not the date of verdict
E. holding that resentencing is required
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.