Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
successive. See ante, at 891-92. The Washington Supreme Court reached this conclusion, however, only after reviewing the merits of the petition: This petition is both repetitive and untimely. RCW 10.73.090, .140. The only possible basis on which Mr. [Dictado] could avoid both of these procedural bars is if this petition rested on newly discovered evidence, which would constitute both an exception to the statute of limitations and good cause for failing to raise the new issue earlier.... Although Mr. Guloy did not provide his affidavit until February 5, 1997, it ... does not qualify as newly discovered evidence. Mr. Guloy did not recently recant testimony he gave against Mr. Dictado. Mr. Guloy did not testify at all at that trial, nor were any of his hearsay statements admit iz.1998) ; Galindo v. Johnson, 19 F.Supp.2d 697, 698,
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that seventh application for postconviction relief which was rejected because evidence on which it was based was not properly authenticated was properly filed
B. holding that because defendant did not raise a newly discovered evidence claim or amend his postconviction motion after the evidentiary hearing the issue was not timely presented to the trial court and was not cognizable on appeal
C. holding that the defendants evidence did not qualify as newly discovered evidence
D. holding seventh state petition for postconviction relief which was based on newly discovered evidence but rejected by the state courts because the evidence was not newly discovered was properly filed
E. holding evidence was not newly discovered because the underlying facts were well within the partys knowledge prior to the district courts entry of judgment
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.