Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
other areas of criminal law. Plea agreements, for example, commonly contain a provision stating that proffer information that is disclosed during the course of plea negotiations is inadmissible as substantive evidence of guilt, but is admissible for purposes of impeachment. The standard plea agreement provides: “No statements made or information provided by [the defendant] will be used by the government directly against her, except for the purpose of cross-examination or impeachment should she be a witness' in any criminal trial or proceeding and offer testimony materially different from any statements made or information provided during the proffer....” United States v. Nemetz, No. 87-196-C, slip op. at 2-3, 1987 WL 17543 (D. Mass. Sept. 21, 1987) (quoting a standard plea agreement) . Similarly, grand jury testimony, which is
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that the constitution does not require the government to disclose impeachment evidence prior to entering a plea agreement with a criminal defendant
B. holding that the defendant by signing the plea agreement waives the protection of fedrcrimp 11e6 for the purposes of impeachment
C. holding that although signing arbitration agreement was condition of employment agreement was not void for unconscionability
D. holding parolee waives constitutional searchandseizure rights by voluntarily signing parole agreement
E. recognizing that a voluntary and understanding guilty plea entered without the benefit of a plea bargain waives all nonjurisdictional defects that occurred before the entry of the plea
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.