Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
appellate counsel’s performance was constitutionally deficient, we give special weight to the PCR court’s decision. Finally, the State’s case against Pfau did not hinge upon the Cyco evidence. As found by the trial court, Pfau’s appellate counsel, the PCR court, and the district court below, the State presented overwhelming evidence that Pfau planned and participated in the robbery. Although we conclude the Iowa Supreme Court decided the trial court did not erroneously admit the Cyco evidence, we also conclude, even if the trial court did erroneously admit this evidence, it constituted harmless error beyond a reasonable doubt, which means Pfau suffered no prejudice from his appellate counsel’s failure to cite Nance. See, e.g., Odem v. Hopkins, 382 F.3d 846, 851-52 (8th Cir.2004) ; Bear Stops v. United States, 339 F.3d 777,
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding stricklands prejudice prong was not met because of overwhelming evidence of guilt
B. holding that prejudice was not shown where there was overwhelming evidence of guilt
C. holding the error harmless in light of the overwhelming evidence of guilt
D. holding improperly admitted evidence was harmless error given the overwhelming evidence of guilt
E. holding that even if the error complained of was structural and affected substantial rights the fourth prong of olano was not met because of the overwhelming and essentially uncontroverted evidence of petitioners guilt
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.