Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
conelusory allegations, such as “I was coerced,” and the “sufficient facts” required under Powell. Because Felice’s motion relies on conelusory allegations which find no support in the record, he did not provide “sufficient facts which, if proven, would justify relief’ from his earlier guilty plea. Accordingly, the district court acted within its discretion in denying the motion to withdraw without holding a hearing. Felice points to his assertion of innocence to support the withdrawal of his plea. As to his claim of innocence, Felice has made only a bare assertion that he “did nothing wrong.” He points to no facts t e because he did not consider evidence provided by Felice and because he refused to speak to witnesses. See Washington v. Watkins, 655 F.2d 1346, 1363-64 (5th Cir.1981) . Felice’s motion did not identify the
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that in order to state a claim for ineffective assistance of counsel based on the failure to call a witness to testify the claimant must allege 1 the identity of the potential witness 2 that the witness was available to testify at trial 3 the substance of the witnesss testimony and 4 an explanation of how the omission of the testimony prejudiced the case
B. holding that where movant alleged the names of uncalled witnesses and them anticipated testimony which would have been relevant mitigation evidence in the penalty phase but did not allege that trial counsel knew of the witnesses or that the witnesses were available to testify at trial the movant was not entitled to an evidentiary hearing on his postconviction relief motion because he did not allege facts sufficient to satisfy the standard applicable to his claim
C. recognizing that ineffective assistance claims based on uncalled witnesses require a heavy showing by the petitioner because the court is forced to make a hypothetical determination of how an uncalled witness may have testified
D. holding that the prosecutors explanation of a defendants subpoena power was a fair reply to defense counsel questioning the absence of testimony from certain witnesses but going a step further to claim uncalled witnesses would bolster the states case exceeded the boundaries of a fair reply
E. holding that counsels failure to impeach a witness by showing bias was ineffective assistance
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.