Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
whether counsel’s constitutionally ineffective performance affected the outcome of the plea process. In other words, in order to satisfy the “prejudice” requirement, the defendant must show that there is a reasonable probability that, but for counsel’s errors, he would not have pleaded guilty and would have insisted on going to trial. Hill v. Lockhart, 474 U.S. 52, 58-59, 106 S.Ct. 366, 370, 88 L.Ed.2d 203 (1985). We have held that “Counsel has an obligation to consult with his client on important decisions and to keep him informed of important developments in the course of the prosecution.” Diaz, 930 F.2d at 834. This obligation includes the duty to inform a defendant of any plea offers. See id. at 834-35; see also Beckham v. Wainwright, 639 F.2d 262, 267 (5th Cir. Unit B Mar. 1981) ; Stano v. Dugger, 921 F.2d 1125, 1146 (11th
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that where a defendant pleads guilty or withdraws a guilty plea his attorney must inform him of all of the available options and possible consequences and the failure to do so can fall outside the range of competence required by attorneys in criminal cases
B. holding that a failure to inform the defendant of the minimum possible sentence meant that the defendant did not fully understand the consequences of his plea and his rights were therefore automatically substantially affected
C. holding that counsels failure to advise the defendant of the collateral consequences of a guilty plea cannot rise to the level of constitutionally ineffective assistance
D. holding that a defendant must have knowledge of the likely consequences of entering the guilty plea in order for a plea to be voluntary and knowing
E. holding that the defendants guilty plea was valid where the district court carefully questioned the defendant about whether he understood the consequences of his guilty plea
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.