Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
respect to this deadline. See Head v. United States, 626 A.2d 1382, 1384 n. 3 (D.C.1993) (citing Pettaway v. United States, 390 A.2d 981, 984 (D.C.1978)). Third, the court of appeals’ method for addressing motions to recall the mandate includes an initial step in which motions deemed lacking in merit are denied with out further review, which suggests that the prompt and summary denial of Mr. Jones’ motion does not necessarily indicate procedural default. Together, these considerations suggest that the court of appeals, as likely as not, overlooked the untimeliness of Mr. Jones’ motion and simply determined that his claims lacked merit. At a minimum, this Court has “good reason” to question whether the alternative was the case. Cf. Coleman v. Thompson, 501 U.S. at 740, 111 S.Ct. 2546 ; Jimenez v. Walker, 458 F.3d at 138-39
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that consideration of a claim in a petition for habeas corpus can be barred by failure to comply with state procedural rules
B. holding that a state procedural default will not bar consideration of a federal claim on habeas review unless the last state court rendering a judgment clearly and expressly stated that its judgment rested on a state procedural bar
C. holding that district court correctly applied state law procedural bar to petitioners jury challenge despite state courts failure to indicate that its denial of petition rested on procedural grounds where petitioner never raised facially sufficient jury challenge before any state court and state courts denial of petition could not be construed as a decision on the merits
D. holding that a second or subsequent state petition for postconviction relief filed according to the procedural rules of the state constitutes a properly filed application  without regard to the merits of the petition
E. holding that where state procedural rule was mandatory and unwaivable and where government filed motion to dismiss habeas petition based solely on noncompliance with this procedural rule which state court granted without explanation decision appeared to rest primarily on state law
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.