Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
to the Alabama authorities. The Government argued that Benton’s prior convictions were all entitled to a presumption of regularity. The District Court, after reviewing Benton’s arguments with counsel in open court, agreed with the Government. Benton’s criminal history was pegged at Category IV. Using the total offense level of 23, the resulting Guidelines range was 70-87 months’ imprisonment. The District Court next discussed its sentencing rationale, and sentenced Benton to 70 months, which was the bottom of the suggested Guidelines range. Pursuant to the exception stated in his appellate waiver, Benton appealed the District Court’s calculation of his criminal history We apply a presumption of regularity to court proceedings. See United States v. Jones, 332 F.3d 688, 698 (3d Cir.2003) . On appeal, Benton contends that the District
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that a patent is presumed valid until the contrary is shown
B. holding that absent clear and convincing evidence to the contrary a defendant is bound by his representations made during a plea colloquy
C. recognizing that jurors are presumed to follow instructions
D. holding that absent specific evidence indicating otherwise va is presumed to have reviewed all evidence in the record when making a determination as to service connection
E. holding that absent evidence to the contrary court proceedings are presumed to be procedurally proper
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.