Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
§ 2253(c)(1) & (B), the nature of which remains unaltered by the fact that the dismissal was on jurisdictional grounds. In sum, we hold that the district court’s dismissal of an unauthorized § 2255 motion is a “final order in a proceeding under section 2255” such that § 2253 requires petitioner to obtain a COA before he or she may appeal. In so holding, we join a number of our sister courts who have reached the same result. See Resendiz v. Quarterman, 454 F.3d 456 (5th Cir.2006) (per curiam); Sveum v. Smith, 403 F.3d 447 (7th Cir.) (per curiam), cert. denied, 546 U.S. 944, 126 S.Ct. 442, 163 L.Ed.2d 336 (2005); Jones v. Braxton, 392 F.3d 683 (4th Cir.2004); see also Pratt v. United States, 129 F.3d 54 (1st Cir.1997), cert. denied, 523 U.S. 1123, 118 S.Ct. 1807, 140 L.Ed.2d 945 (1998) . With this much resolved, we must next ask
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that district courts dismissal of  2255 motion as unauthorized is final order where petitioner disputed aedpas applicability
B. holding dismissal for failure to comply with rule 8 was dismissal of entire action which was appealable final order
C. holding that plaintiffs were entitled to vacate final order of dismissal as void when they did not receive the motion for dismissal or notice of the hearing on the order until after the dismissal was entered
D. holding that complaint that appellee used an unauthorized procedure to obtain dismissal of appellants claims was not waived because the trial court lacked authority to enter the order of dismissal
E. holding that dismissal with leave to amend is not a final order
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.