Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
period prescribed in § 2953.21 or to the filing of an earlier petition, “the United States Supreme Court recognized a new federal or state right that applies retroactively to persons in the petitioner’s situation, and the petition asserts a claim based upon that right” and, in addition to meeting one of the foregoing conditions, “the petitioner shows by clear and convincing evidence that, but for constitutional error at trial, no reasonable factfinder would have found the petitioner guilty of which the petitioner was convicted.” No matter how unlikely it seems that Godbolt’s petition will fall within the narrow exception contained in the statute, it is for the state courts to interpret and enforce their laws on such issues. See Israfil v. Russell, 276 F.3d 768, 771-72 (6th Cir. 2001) . In addition, Godbolt did not explain to the
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. recognizing that an appellate court must defer to district courts findings denying defendants motion to suppress even when videotape of defendants encounter with state trooper is available
B. holding it is proper to defer to the family court even if conflicting evidence is presented on appeal as long as ample evidence in the record supports the family courts findings and conclusions
C. holding that appellate court must defer to all implied factual findings supported by record
D. holding that it was proper for the district court to defer to the state courts findings as to whether a petitioners postconviction motion had been submitted according to ohios timeliness requirements
E. holding that circuit court should defer to supreme courts interpretation of the act
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.