Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
passion of the community.” Id. Most of the newspaper articles about the case did not mention Mills, but rather reported the progress of the search for Les Lawhon. Moreover, the articles that mentioned Mills did so in the context of reporting on an unfolding case. No editorials sounded the call for justice, nor did any county officials make public, blatantly prejudicial comments. See Coleman, 778 F.2d at 1538-40 (finding presumed prejudice partially based on the widespread reporting of the county sheriffs statement that he would like to “pre-cook” the defendants in an oven before they were executed). Finally, the disclosure that Mills was in jail for a parole violation did not suggest that juror prejudice should have been presumed. See Marsden v. Moore, 847 F.2d 1536, 1543 (11th Cir.) , cert. denied, 488 U.S. 983, 109 S.Ct. 534,
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that petitioner had failed to establish presumed prejudice despite a substantial number of jurors exposure to newspaper articles disclosing inadmissable evidence
B. holding the bia did not abuse its discretion in denying a motion to reopen when the petitioner presented a long list of newspaper articles and references to the  state department country reports but failed to explain how these developments would affect the petitioner and demonstrate the individualized fear of persecution required for asylum
C. holding petitioner must demonstrate error and substantial prejudice to prevail on a due process claim
D. holding that a principal did not impinge students first amendment rights by censoring articles in a high school newspaper
E. holding that prejudice is only presumed if there is proof of an actual conflict of interest
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.