Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
of counsel claim, Petitioner's failure to allege in his petition any arguments or facts in support of the claim would, in any event, render it entirely deficient. See Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 689, 694, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984) (requiring a petitioner claiming ineffective assistance of counsel to show that counsel's representation "fell below an objective standard of reasonableness” and that "there is a reasonable probability that, but for counsel's unprofessional errors, the result of the proceeding would have been different,” and further requiring that “a court must indulge a strong presumption that counsel's conduct falls within the wide range of reasonable professional assistance”); see also Murray, 477 U.S. 478 at 488, 106 S.Ct. 2639, 91 L.Ed.2d 397  7 . The court need not reach the issue of
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that ineffective assistance of counsel constitutes cause for procedural default only if counsels performance was constitutionally ineffective
B. recognizing that the defendant whose trial counsel represented him on motion for new trial had no opportunity to raise an ineffective assistance of counsel claim prior to appeal and remanding the case for a hearing solely on this issue
C. holding that the strickland test applies to claims  that counsel was constitutionally ineffective for failing to file a notice of appeal
D. recognizing that strickland applies to ineffective assistance of appellate counsel claims
E. holding that so long as a defendant is represented by counsel whose performance is not constitutionally ineffective under the standard established in strickland v washington supra we discern no inequity in requiring him to bear the risk of attorney error that results in procedural default
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.