Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
raw data would be destroyed after two years. See Caulfield, 722 N.W.2d at 313. And while the doctrine of forfeiture by wrongdoing continues to apply to Confrontation Clause violations under Crawford, that doctrine is usually applied in cases involving witness tampering or some other type of threats to witnesses to procure their unavailability. See Caulfield, 722 N.W.2d at 311-12; see also State v. Alvarez-Lopez, 136 N.M. 309, 98 P.3d 699, 703-05 (2004), cert. denied, 543 U.S. 1177, 125 S.Ct. 1334, 161 L.Ed.2d 162 (2005) (defendant did not forfeit his right to confrontation under Crawford by absconding from state and remaining fugitive for seven years). The loss of evidence from a delay in trial is often predictable. See generally Black v. State, 725 N.W.2d 772, 776 (Minn.App.2007) . Thus, a defendant may be deemed to forfeit
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that motion to withdraw guilty plea was untimely when made more than two years later given that drug evidence had been destroyed and witnesses memories had likely faded
B. holding that district court did not abuse its discretion in denying a motion to withdraw guilty plea filed three weeks after entering the plea
C. holding that where a witness had been convicted seventeen years earlier but had been given probation and had not been confined the date of the conviction controlled
D. holding that trial court lacked jurisdiction to consider defendants motion to withdraw guilty plea filed beyond term of court in which defendant was sentenced
E. holding that a motion to withdraw a guilty plea was not pending because nothing was left for the court to decide
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.