Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
represent conflicting interests; that Mitchell’s representation of Williams did not have an adverse effect on Mitchell’s representation of Chambers; and that Mitchell did not have a conflict of interest while representing Chambers. We observe that the Supreme Court has not held that the standard applied by the state court applies to claims of successive representation conflicts. See Mickens v. Taylor, 535 U.S. 162, 176, 122 S.Ct. 1237, 152 L.Ed.2d 291 (2002) (declining to decide whether to extend standard for multiple concurrent representation conflicts in Cuyler v. Sullivan, 446 U.S. 335, 100 S.Ct. 1708, 64 L.Ed.2d 333 (1980)— conflict actually affected adequacy of representation—to successive representation conflicts); but see Perillo v. Johnson, 205 F.3d 775, 797-98 (5th Cir.2000) . Even assuming that the state court
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that strickland applies to cases involving successive representation
B. holding teague applies to capital cases
C. holding that conflicts of constitutional magnitude can arise from cases of successive representation
D. holding that teague applies only to procedural rules and not to decisions of the supreme court deciding the meaning of criminal statutes
E. holding that cuyler standard applies to all multiple representation conflicts whether concurrent or successive under preaedpa law and holding teague bar inapplicable
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.