Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
transporting drugs between Guam and another United States territory constituted “importation” because it required nocence claim was available after 1996, when the First Circuit held that transporting drugs over international waters did not constitute “importation” within the meaning of 21 U.S.C. § 952(a). See United States v. Ramirez-Ferrer, 82 F.3d 1131, 1144 (1st Cir.1996) (en banc). We disagree. For the purposes of determining whether a claim was unavailable under § 2241, we look to whether controlling law in this circuit foreclosed petitioner’s argument. See, e.g., In re Jones, 226 F.3d 328, 333-34 (4th Cir.2000) (a claim is not available when “settled law of this circuit or the Supreme Court established the legality of conviction....”) (emphasis added); Davenport, 147 F.3d at 610 . The mere possibility that the Ninth Circuit
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that where a defendants claim did not amount to a complete denial of counsel it could not form the basis of a collateral attack
B. holding that a defendant who fails to raise a specific issue as the basis for suppression in a motion to suppress to the district court has waived the right to raise that issue on appeal
C. holding that if a petitioner wishes to preserve an issue for appeal he must first raise it in the proper administrative forum
D. holding that a judgment as to the title in a prior litigation was not subject to collateral attack
E. holding that when the law of the circuit was so firmly against him petitioner did not have to raise an issue to preserve it as a basis for collateral attack later on
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.