Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
We noted that Stein’s holding was based on the “tessellated scheme” of Rule 4(a) and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 77(d), regarding notice of judgment. Id. at 1252 (quoting Stein, 197 F.3d at 426). Because Mackey’s appeal was untimely not for lack of notice, but because his counsel had failed to continue representing him in court — a scenario for which no rule parallel to Rule 77 exists — we concluded that the Federal Rules were not so comprehensive as to leave no room for Rule 60(b)(6). We recognized that “[a] federal habeas petitioner — who as such does not have a Sixth Amendment right to counsel — is ordinarily bound by his attorney’s negligence.” Id. at 1253 (quoting Towery v. Ryan, 673 F.3d 933, 941 (9th Cir.2012)). However, we then reasoned from Maples, 132 S.Ct. at 923-24 , and Community Dental Services v. Tani, 282
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that attorney abandonment constitutes an extraordinarycircumstance that allows a federal court to disregard the state procedural bar to hearing a habeas petition
B. holding that the district court  did not abuse its discretion in denying his petition for reinstatement where membership in good standing in the state bar was required before attorney could be admitted to the federal bar and applicant had not been readmitted to state bar
C. holding that a prisoners failure to pursue an appeal in state court is a procedural bar to federal habeas relief unless the petitioner shows both cause for failing to bring the state claim  and actual prejudice from the failure to consider his federal claims
D. holding that if the state court addresses both the procedural default and the merits of a federal claim in the alternative a federal court should apply the state procedural bar and decline to reach the merits of the claim
E. 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
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.