Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
desire to speak does not negate Fautenberry’s pri- or, unambiguous initiation of further communication. To be sure, had Fautenberry reinvoked his Fifth Amendment right to counsel after initiating communication with Agent Ott, he would have been protected from further questioning, but Fau-tenberry does not assert that he did so and the alleged Brady evidence does not demonstrate that he did so. In order to invoke one’s Fifth Amendment right to counsel, the “suspect must unambiguously request counsel,” meaning that “he must articulate his desire to have counsel present sufficiently clearly that a reasonable police officer in the circumstances would understand the statement to be a request for an attorney.” Davis v. United States, 512 U.S. 452, 459, 114 S.Ct. 2350, 129 L.Ed.2d 362 (1994) . The alleged Brady evidence does not indicate
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding i might want to talk to an attorney to be ambiguous
B. holding that an ambiguous or silent record will not support a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel
C. holding that in determining whether there exists a valid waiver of the right to counsel in the criminal setting the court may consider a defendants lack of good faith in working with appointed counsel including an unreasonable refusal to cooperate with counsel or an unreasonable request for substitution of appointed counsel and the timeliness of defendants request for new counsel particularly when a defendant makes an untimely request for new counsel  under circumstances which are likely to result in a continuance
D. holding that an ambiguous mention of an attorney is not a request for counsel
E. holding even when a request for an attorney is ambiguous it is incumbent upon law enforcement to seek clarification of the ambiguity before denying the statutory right to counsel
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.