Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
petition, in contrast, seeks the very different relief of rescinding the plea agreement, and it attacks the validity of his conviction and sentence. It is settled that “[mjotions pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 are the presumptive means by which federal prisoners can challenge their convictions or sentences that are allegedly in violation of the Constitution,” Okereke v. United States, 307 F.3d 117, 120 (3d Cir.2002), and a federal prisoner can seek relief under § 2241 only if the remedy provided by § 2255 is “inadequate or ineffective to test the legality of his detention.” 28 U.S.C. § 2255(e). Ryan’s attempt to void his plea agreement as a result of the government’s alleged breach must be brought in proceeding under § 2255. See Nichols v. Symmes, 553 F.3d 647, 649-50 (8th Cir. 2009) ; see also United States v. Eakman, 378 F.3d
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that district court did not abuse its discretion in denying a motion to withdraw guilty plea filed three weeks after entering the plea
B. holding that the court had no jurisdiction over an alleged breach of a plea agreement
C. holding that prisoner who sought to withdraw guilty plea based on alleged breach of plea agreement due to his placement in a federal rather than a state prison facility had to bring claim under  2255 not  2241
D. holding that a defendant who is allowed to withdraw his plea must either withdraw his plea to all charges or to none when his plea to all charges was part of an agreement with the state
E. holding that a defendant may withdraw a guilty plea as a matter of right before it is accepted by the court based on ndr crim p 32d3 which states that a defendant may not withdraw his plea of guilty as a matter of right once the plea has been accepted by the court  alteration in original
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.