Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
protections that Miranda affords. A. The holding in Edwards v. Arizona makes clear the unreasonableness of the state court decision. As required by that case, Sessoms “expressed his desire” for the assistance of counsel, and was therefore “not subject to further interrogation by the authorities until counsel [had] been made available to him.” Edwards, 451 U.S. at 484-85, 101 S.Ct. 1880. “Invocation of the Miranda right to counsel ‘requires, at a minimum, some statement that can reasonably be construed to be an expression of a desire for the assistance of an attorney.’ ” Davis, 512 U.S. at 459, 114 S.Ct. 2350 (quoting McNeil v. Wisconsin, 501 U.S. 171, 178, 111 S.Ct. 2204, 115 L.Ed.2d 158 (1991)); see also Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 444-45, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966) . These decisions, which constitute clearly
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that an individual can waive any process to which he or she has a right
B. holding that a suspect must be warned prior to any questioning that he has the right to remain silent that anything he says can be used against him in a court of law that he has the right to the presence of an attorney and that if he cannot afford an attorney one will be appointed for him prior to any questioning if he so desires
C. recognizing that subject matter jurisdiction can be questioned at any time and with respect to any claim
D. holding that if a suspect indicates in any manner and at any stage of the process that he wishes to consult with an attorney before speaking there can be no questioning
E. holding that a defendant need not be advised of the right to terminate questioning at any time
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.