Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
entry “by means of specious documentation that concealed] the illegality of his presence,” United States v. Rivera-Ventu-ra, 72 F.3d 277, 281 (2d Cir.1995), we hold that the statute of limitations was not triggered at the time he reentered the country, but rather at the time that he was “found in” the United States by immigration authorities. See id. at 282. We therefore conclude that the filing of the indictment approximately two-and-a-half years after Acevedo’s discovery was timely. For this reason, trial counsel’s alleged failure to raise or investigate further a statute of limitations defense could not have prejudiced Acevedo, and, therefore, his ineffective assistance claims on this ground fail. See Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984) . Acevedo raises numerous other arguments on
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding defendant did not show prejudice to support ineffective assistance of appellate counsel claim because any evidentiary error was harmless
B. holding that the defendant did not show prejudice to support ineffective assistance of counsel because any evidentiary error was harmless
C. holding that a defendant must show actual prejudice to succeed on an ineffective assistance of counsel claim
D. holding that to succeed on an ineffective assistance claim a defendant must show that there is a reasonable probability that but for counsels unprofessional errors the result of the proceeding would have been different
E. recognizing a constitutional claim for ineffective assistance of counsel
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.