Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
stop. The agent responded, “I could see him as plainly as I can see him sitting there, actually probably a little bit closer.” This evidence was sufficient to support a conclusion beyond a reasonable doubt that the person who had committed the crimes in question was indeed Robert Castaneda. III. Because we conclude that the evidence presented prior to the initial close of the prosecution’s case was sufficiently strong to identify Castaneda, we need not reach Castaneda’s second contention. The explicit identification presented after the reopening did not affect the outcome of the case, and therefore even if we were to assume that the court erred in allowing the prosecution to reopen its case, any such error was harmless. See United States v. Toles, 297 F.3d 959, 968 (10th Cir.2002) . The judgment below is AFFIRMED. * This order
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that in order to conclude that federal constitutional error is harmless court must find that error harmless beyond a reasonable doubt
B. holding that federal appellate courts are authorized to engage in constitutional harmless error analysis in the first instance when a state appellate court does not undertake such an analysis and that such error must be harmless beyond a reasonable doubt
C. holding that appellate court should review error in trial procedure to determine if it was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt
D. holding that the improper denial of a defendants opportunity to impeach for bias is subject to harmlesserror review in which the reviewing court must determine if the error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt
E. holding that trial court must determine whether fifth amendment violation was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.