Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
that “[t]his standard does not require ... abject deference, but nonetheless prohibits us from substituting our own judgment for that of the state court.” Snow, 474 F.3d at 696 (quotations and footnote omitted). As the Supreme Court has made clear, Even in the context of federal habeas, deference does not imply abandonment or abdication of judicial review. Deference does not by definition preclude relief. A federal court can disagree with a state court’s ... determination and, when guided by AEDPA, conclude the decision was unreasonable or that the factual premise was incorrect by clear and convincing evidence. Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 340, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (2003); see also Miller-El v. Dretke, 545 U.S. 231, 240, 125 S.Ct. 2317, 162 L.Ed.2d 196 (2005) . IV. GUILT-PHASE INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that the brecht standard applies on federal collateral review even after passage of the aedpa
B. holding that the aedpa statute of limitations is not jurisdictional
C. holding that the standard for withholding of removal is more demanding than the standard for asylum
D. recognizing that although the term good cause is undefined it is at least as demanding as the excusable neglect standard
E. holding the aedpa standard is demanding but not insatiable
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.