Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
conviction had not been included in his criminal history, he would have been in criminal history category II instead of category III. Id. Robinson claimed in his § 2255 petition that he received ineffective assistance of counsel because his attorney did not object to what he alleges was double counting in his sentence calculation that was contrary to U.S.S.G. § 4A1.2(a)(l). The district court ruled that the difference in the sentence Robinson would have received in category II was not significant enough to establish ineffective assistance of counsel. On appeal we determined that the maximum difference of 32 months between category II and category III failed to meet the constitutional standard of prejudice. Both we and the district court were in error. See Glover, 121 S .Ct. at 701 . Because both the district court and we
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding petitioner has the burden of proof under the strickland test
B. holding that there is no baseline or quantifiable increase in a defendants sentence that must be shown to establish prejudice under strickland
C. holding that in defining the reasonable probability language in strickland with more precision substantial possibility describes the prejudice standard in strickland
D. holding that any reduction in sentence constitutes substantial prejudice for purposes of strickland analysis
E. holding that it is error to engraft onto the prejudice branch of the strickland test a requirement that any increase in a sentence must meet a standard of significance
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.