Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
following his trial. Under the circumstances presented, we see no reason to depart from the rule established in Patten. See Estelle, 420 U.S. at 542 (dismissal warranted when escaped convict is at large during ongoing appellate process); Allen v. Georgia, 166 U.S. 138, 140-41 (1897) (upholding state court’s dismissal of appeal of escaped prisoner and refusal to reinstate appeal against constitutional due process attack). Because the defendant elected to absent himself from the jurisdiction during the period of appeal, he forfeited the right to appellate review. See Molinaro v. New Jersey, 396 U.S. 365 (1970) (per curiam) (“[E]scape . . . disentitles the defendant to call upon the resources of the Court for determination of his claims.”); cf. State v. Brenes, 151 N.H. 11, 12 (2004) . There are no “equities pertaining to the
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that a sentence to a term of imprisonment ten years greater than the applicable maximum affected the defendants substantial rights
B. holding defendant culpable for the natural and probable consequence   of his conduct
C. holding destruction of trial transcript pursuant to court rule ten years after defendants escape disadvantaged defendant due to his own culpable misconduct
D. holding appellants deposition testimony that he believed his oral contract would exist for another eight to ten years was unenforceable pursuant to statute of frauds
E. holding that arbitrators failure to disclose his prior business dealings with defendant some twenty years earlier did not amount to misconduct
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.