Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
on Mr. Stanley’s behavior, which was also a concern of the district court, see id. Vol. 4 at 72, so this delay does not weigh against the government. In addition, the two-month delay required for the later competency evaluation that was requested by defense counsel weighs against Mr. Stanley. Mr. Stanley alleges that the substitution of district judges on October 31, 2008, caused delay, but he has not explained how the change of judge delayed his case. Consequently, this claim does not weigh against the government. Cf. Gomez, 67 F.3d at 1522 (“[D]elay attributable to an overburdened judg cooperate with his attorneys and the necessity of substituting lead counsel twice — once a month before trial — resulted in considerable delay to be weighed against him. See Britton, 129 S.Ct. at 1292 . Under these circumstances, we conclude that
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that in determining whether there exists a valid waiver of the right to counsel in the criminal setting the court may consider a defendants lack of good faith in working with appointed counsel including an unreasonable refusal to cooperate with counsel or an unreasonable request for substitution of appointed counsel and the timeliness of defendants request for new counsel particularly when a defendant makes an untimely request for new counsel  under circumstances which are likely to result in a continuance
B. holding defendants right to counsel not violated despite district court denying pretrial request by the defendant to discharge his attorney where request was made on eve of trial and was openly part of attempt to have the district judge recuse himself and delay trial
C. holding delays caused by numerous defense pretrial motions and defendants motion to continue do not weigh against the government
D. holding that trial court did not abuse discretion in denying motion to continue for purposes of hiring private counsel on eve of trial where defendant had several months to do so and failed to articulate sufficient reasons for his dissatisfaction with appointed counsel
E. holding delays caused by defendants role in necessitating substitution of defense counsel once on the eve of trial are attributed to defendant
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.