Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
membership in a prison gang. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Mpoyo v. Litton Electro-Optical Sys., 430 F.3d 985, 987 (9th Cir.2005) (res judicata); Wyatt v. Terhune, 315 F.3d 1108, 1117 (9th Cir.2003) (failure to exhaust). We affirm. The district court properly dismissed the due process claims because they have already been litigated by the parties or their privies in state court. See Acuna v. Kirkland, No. HC-PB-05-0005242, slip op. at 1 (Cal.Super.Ct. Oct. 6, 2006); In re Arcadio Acuna, No. HCPB06-5235, slip op. at 3 (Cal.Super.Ct. Apr. 6, 2007); see also Kay v. City of Rancho Palos Verdes, 504 F.3d 803, 808 (9th Cir.2007) (setting forth elements of res judicata under California law); Silverton v. Dep’t of Treasury, 644 F.2d 1341, 1347 (9th Cir.1981) . The district court properly dismissed the
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding federal habeas proceeding was properly dismissed for failure to exhaust state remedies when petitioners direct appeal from resentencing was still pending in state court at the time he sought habeas relief
B. holding that habeas petitioner scheduled to be executed in the state of virginia for capital murder could not raise claim of violation of his rights under the vienna convention on federal habeas review where he failed to preserve the claim by raising it in state court proceedings vienna convention does not trump subsequent federal statute requiring habeas petitioners who claim to be held in violation of treaties of the united states to develop factual bases for their claims in state court as a precondition of federal habeas review
C. holding common issue of fault was actually litigated in prior property damage suit and determined adversely to plaintiff and therefore fault could not be relitigated in subsequent per sonal injury action under issue preclusion
D. holding that because of the nature of a state habeas proceeding a decision actually rendered should preclude an identical issue from being relitigated in a subsequent  1983 action if the state habeas court afforded a full and fair opportunity for the issue to be heard and determined under federal standards
E. holding that a state habeas proceeding decided on the merits precluded a section 1983 action in federal court
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.