Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
request with a viable constitutional claim that is not procedurally barred, or (b) when the sought-after assistance would only support a meritless claim, or (c) when the sought after assistance would only supplement prior evidence. Id. (internal citation omitted; emphasis added). Gutierrez has not shown the district court abused its discretion in failing to grant additional investigative assistance. “[Gutierrez’] right under 21 U.S.C. § 848(q)(9) to the assistance of experts where reasonably necessary to press his habeas claims does not entitle him to a federal evidentiary hearing when he has failed to ... develop his evidence in state court”. Turner v. Johnson, 106 F.3d 1178, 1184 n. 16 (5th Cir.1997) (internal citations omitted); see also Riley v. Dretke, 362 F.3d 302 (5th Cir.2004) , cert. denied, 543 U.S. 1056, 125 S.Ct. 866,
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding petitioner cannot show a substantial need for investigative assistance when the claims he seeks to pursue are procedurally barred
B. recognizing that ineffective assistance of appellate counsel claims not premised on procedurally barred claims can be raised for the first time on appeal by new appellate counsel and are not limited to habeas review
C. holding that claims raised on direct appeal are procedurally barred from consideration in a rule 3850 motion
D. holding petitioner cannot claim he was denied right to assistance of counsel when he knowingly and voluntarily decided to represent himself
E. holding that successive motions for postconviction relief are procedurally barred
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.