Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
of cocaine. We review the district court’s denial of a section 2241 petition de novo, see Moore v. Reno, 185 F.3d 1054, (9th Cir.1999) (per curiam), cert. denied, 528 U.S. 1178, 120 S.Ct. 1214, 145 L.Ed.2d 1115 (2000), and we affirm. Quintero contends that the district court erred by dismissing his section 2241 petition, alleging that the Government breached the plea agreement by failing to file a motion for reduction of sentence pursuant to Fed.R.Crim.P. 35(b). This contention is without merit. The district court correctly determined that Quintero’s claims were more properly brought pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255, and that his inability to bring a second or successive motion under section 2255 does not render federal habeas relief ineffective or inadequate. See Moore, 185 F.3d at 1055 ; Tripati v. Henman, 843 F.2d 1160, 1162 (9th
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that a subcontract agreement could not circumvent the requirements of section 327a
B. holding that a petitioner may not circumvent the requirements of the aedpa by filing a section 2241 petition
C. holding that  2253clas requirements apply when a state habeas petitioner is proceeding under  2241
D. holding that utility customers mailing of a petition did not constitute the filing of the petition as filing was not effectuated until the petition was received by the clerk
E. holding that a petitioner may amend a habeas petition rather than filing a second or successive petition when the first petition has not yet reached a final decision
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.