Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
the movant “ ‘presents claims subject to the requirements for successive applications as well as claims cognizable under Rule 60(b),’ ” such a motion is a mixed Rule 60(b)/§ 2255 motion. Id. at 400 (quoting United States v. Winestock, 340 F.3d 200, 207 (4th Cir. 2003)). In his Rule 60(b) motion, Strom sought a remedy for a perceived flaw in his § 2255 proceeding — namely, the district court’s failure, in ruling on the § 2255 motion, to address Strom’s claims of actual innocence and that plea counsel induced Strom’s guilty plea by assuring Strom that he would receive a 10-year sentence — and raised a direct attack on his conviction and sentence. Accordingly, the motion was a mixed Rule 60(b)/§ 2255 motion. McRae, 793 F.3d at 397, 400; see Gonzalez, 545 U.S. at 532 n.4, 125 S.Ct. 2641 ; Winestock, 340 F.3d at 207 (stating that “a
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. recognizing the trial courts responsibility to inquire where matters are raised which might entitle the movant to relief under rule 60b 
B. holding that appellate courts can review the denial of a rule 60b motion by appeal even if the appellant mistakenly files a petition for a writ of mandamus
C. holding without extended discussion that even if the district court should have construed the petitioners motion under 18 usc  3582c2 as a rule 60b motion the court would nonetheless have had to recharacterize the rule 60b motion as an sshp
D. holding that district court correctly determined that it did not have jurisdiction to consider rule 60b motion after appellate decision because movant cited no material change of circumstances or new evidence
E. holding that a movant files a true rule 60b motion when he  asserts that a previous ruling which precluded a merits determination was in error
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.