Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
perjury and corroborates Maxwell’s argument that Storeh had a signature modus operandi that he employed as a witness for the prosecution at Maxwell’s trial. The preliminary inquiry, then, remains whether it was objectively unreasonable— in light of the evidence revealed over the course of the evidentiary hearing — for the Superior Court to find that Storeh testified truthfully at the 1984 trial when he stated that Maxwell had confessed. The difficulty here is not whether Storeh became a professional “snitch” who frequently committed perjury. That much is clear. Rather, the question is whether, as the state court concluded, in 1984 Storeh remained an unsophistic e court’s finding that petitioner’s confession was voluntarily obtained was objectively unreasonable); Hall, 343 F.3d at 984 ; Nunes v. Mueller, 350 F.3d 1045, 1057 (9th
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that an appellate court considers the entire record on appeal not just the evidence presented at the suppression hearing in affirming the denial of a motion to suppress
B. holding that the evidence presented at a factfinding hearing was sufficient to support the chins finding
C. holding that counsels success was not extraordinary in light of the evidence presented at trial and the noncomplexity of the case
D. holding that the state appellate court made an unreasonable determination of the facts in light of the evidence presented by finding that the falsity of the jailhouse informants notes had not been proven at a hearing
E. holding in the context of the criminal false claims act that to prove falsity the government only had to prove that the statement was known to be untrue at the time the defendant made it
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.