Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
denying their motions for a new trial and an evi-dentiary hearing on the basis of alleged juror misconduct and extrinsic influence on jurors. According to William and Chantal, since their motions demonstrate a color-able showing of extrinsic influence, the court erred by not conducting an eviden-tiary hearing on their motions. For the reasons discussed below, we disagree. The only evidence offered by William and Chantal in support of their motions for a new trial and an evidentiary hearing consisted of the Porter and the Roberts Affidavits. With respect to the Porter Affidavit, all but two of the statements contained therein are excluded by Fed.R.Evid. 606(b) because they involve thé jury’s deliberative process and the mental impressions of juror Hart. The two statem (11th Cir.1984) . Thus, the court did not abuse its discretion
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that allegations of influence by an unnamed person outside the jury required the holding of an evidentiary hearing to determine extrinsic influence
B. recognizing that trial court is obligated to conduct evidentiary hearing only when defendant makes a colorable showing of extrinsic influence 
C. holding that it was not error for trial court to decline to conduct full evidentiary hearing before trial on outrageous government conduct claim
D. holding that the trial court did not need to conduct an evidentiary hearing when the dispute could be resolved as a matter of law
E. holding that where partys allegations raise a colorable entitlement to relief pursuant to rule 1540b3 a formal evidentiary hearing is required
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.