Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
not have proceeded to trial had he not been assured that he would receive a sentence of 121 to 151 months of imprisonment. Mackay has provided no direct evidence that he would not have pleaded guilty if he had known that his sentence was not limited in this manner by his plea. Rather, the evidence in the record supports the contrary conclusion. The language of the plea agreement is clear that no representations or promises were made as to the sentence to be imposed. Additionally, he was admonished at rearraignment that sentence could be imposed from ten years to life imprisonment, and he responded negatively to the court’s specific inquiry whether anyone had made promises to him as to the sentence that would be imposed. See United States v. Cervantes, 132 F.3d 1106, 1110 (5th Cir.1998) . Moreover, despite vigorously pursuing a
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding there is a strong presumption of verity for solemn declarations in court
B. recognizing rule 403s strong presumption in favor of admissibility
C. recognizing a strong presumption favoring arbitrability
D. recognizing strong presumption against interlocutory appeals
E. recognizing presumption
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.