Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
Carranza v. INS, 277 F.3d 65, 71 (1st Cir.2002). A court lacks habeas jurisdiction to evaluate claims “grounded solely in the INS’s failure to exercise its prosecutorial discretion.” Id. Pure issues of law may be raised in habeas petitions. See INS v. St. Cyr, 533 U.S. 289, 302, 121 S.Ct. 2271, 150 L.Ed.2d 347 (2001) (noting historical use of writ to challenge detentions based on “errors of law, including the erroneous application or interpretation of statutes”); Demore v. Kim, 538 U.S. 510, 516-17, 123 S.Ct. 1708, 155 L.Ed.2d 724 (2003) (upholding use of habeas to challenge on constitutional grounds the “statutory framework” permitting detention without bail); Saint Fort v. Ashcroft, 329 F.3d 191, 203 (1st Cir.2003) (quoting Goncalves v. Reno, 144 F.3d 110, 113 (1st Cir.1998)) . “[I]f a statute makes an alien eligible to be
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that federal courts possess habeas jurisdiction over claims arising under implementing legislation and regulations of the convention against torture
B. holding that the united states court of federal claims lacked jurisdiction over claims arising from the violation of a criminal statute
C. holding that the federal district courts dismissal of the plaintiffs federal claims deprived the court of its jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims arising from the same incident
D. holding that claims arising under the sixth amendment fall outside the jurisdiction of the court of federal claims
E. holding that the court of federal claims lacked jurisdiction over claims arising from the violation of a criminal statute
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.