Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
to clothe his argument under the guise of Supreme Court authority. Rather, he cites only our holding in Rodriguez to support his claim. Rodriguez itself makes clear, though, that its holding is based solely on Ninth Circuit precedent. Id. (“To the extent Nelson [v. McCarthy, 637 F.2d 1291, 1296-97 (9th Cir.1980),] requires pre-waiver clarification of a suspect’s wishes concerning his Miranda rights, it has not been superseded by Davis and remains binding precedent.”). Because state courts are not bound under AEDPA by precedent other than that established by the Supreme Court, Rodriguez is immaterial to our review of the state court’s decision to the extent Sessoms relies on it to argue that clarifying questions were required. Compare Albemi v. McDaniel, 458 F.3d 860, 866 (9th Cir.2006) , with Davis, 512 U.S. at 461, 114 S.Ct. 2350
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that a state court cannot be said to have unreasonably applied clearly established federal law under  2254d1 when there are no holdings from the supreme court addressing the issue raised by the petitioner
B. holding that the sixth circuit erred by following its own precedent rather than that of the supreme court in determining what is clearly established federal law
C. holding that where the supreme court has expressly left an open question circuit precedent is immaterial and there is no clearly established law for the state court to have unreasonably applied
D. holding state court could not have unreasonably applied clearly established federal law given the lack of holdings from the supreme court regarding the potentially prejudicial effect of spectators courtroom conduct
E. holding that state court could not have unreasonably applied federal law if no clear supreme court precedent existed
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.