Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
other things, that he has a “significantly protectable” interest in the property or transaction that is the subject of the suit. See Wilderness Soc’y v. U.S. Forest Serv., 630 F.3d 1173, 1177 (9th Cir.2011) (en banc); see also Fed.R.Civ.P. 24(a)(2). Klaas daims that 18 U.S.C. § 3771, which provides crime victims with certain rights, gives him a “significantly protectable” interest. We agree with the district court that it does not. Section 3771 gives crime victims rights in certain cases involving individual criminal defendants and prisoners and prescribes certain remedies. This case does not involve an individual defendant or prisoner, and intervention is not among the remedies listed in the statute. See 18 U.S.C. § 3771(b), (d); cf. Brandt v. Gooding, 636 F.3d 124, 136 (4th Cir.2011) . In addition, Klaas’s claim to an interest in
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that a motion to intervene to assert the publics first amendment right of access to criminal proceedings is proper
B. holding no right to counsel for capital defendants in state habeas proceedings
C. holding that infirmities in state habeas proceedings do not constitute grounds for federal habeas relief
D. holding that a deathsentenced state prisoner has a right to a competency determination in federal habeas proceedings
E. holding that  3771 does not give crime victims the right to intervene in federal habeas proceedings
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.