Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
the conflict between Richards and Kaiser and declining to "resolve ... the scope of the actual innocence doctrine in the context of non-capital habitual offender sentencing”). We need not address the correctness of the district court's ruling on the scope of the "actual innocence” doctrine because the analytical foundation for the court’s decision' — Reyes-Requena—is no longer apposite following the establishment of our own savings clause test in Prost, which, as Mr. Abernathy recognizes, does not include an actual innocence inquiry. See Brace, 634 F.3d at 1170 (rejecting a petitioner’s claim that he meets Reyes-Requena's "actual innocence” savings clause test on the grounds that we "explicitly declined to adopt the Reyes-Requena test in Prost"); see also Aplt. Supp. Reply Br. at 11 . 7 . As noted, the government's primary
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that a claim under booker does not fit within the savings clause of 28 usc  2255
B. holding   2241 is the proper avenue by which to challenge pretrial detention
C. holding for  2241 purposes that  2255 is inadequate or ineffective only if the remedy itself is infirm not because of the movants failure to use it or to prevail under it
D. holding that a prisoner cannot use the savings clause of 28 usc  2241 to escape the restrictions on successive  2255 motions and the failure to raise an available claim earlier
E. recognizing that under prost access to  2241 through the savings clause turns solely on whether the remedy provided by  2255 is inadequate or ineffective to test the legality of mr abernathys detention
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.