Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
which was so inflammatory that it necessarily prevented a fair trial. Windham v. Merkle, 163 F.3d 1092, 1103 (9th Cir.1998); see Hovey v. Ayers, 458 F.3d 892, 923 (9th Cir.2006) (“Even if there are no permissible inferences the jury can draw from the evidence in question, due process is violated only if the evidence is of such quality as necessarily prevents a fair trial.” (internal quotation marks omitted)). The Supreme Court has made “very few rulings regarding the admission of evidence as a violation of due process”; specifically, it has never “made a clear ruling that admission of irrelevant or overtly prejudicial evidence constitutes a due process violation sufficient to warrant the issuance of the writ.” Holley, 568 F.3d at 1101; see McGuire, 502 U.S. at 70, 112 S.Ct. 475 . The court of appeal was not objectively
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding violation of rule 23a does not entitle petitioner to habeas relief
B. holding that admission of evidence must be fundamentally unfair to constitute a due process violation
C. holding that the mere fact that relevant evidence is shocking to the sensibilities does not make the admission of that evidence a violation of due process
D. holding that admission of relevant evidence generally not due process violation warranting habeas relief
E. holding that evidence of specific competitive injury establishes irreparable injury warranting injunctive relief
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.