Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
colloquy. We have held: A competent election by the defendant to represent himself and to decline the assistance of counsel once made before the court carries forward through all further proceedings in that case unless appointment of counsel for subsequent proceedings is expressly requested by the defendant or there are circumstances which suggest that the waiver was limited to a particular stage of the proceedings. United States v. Springer, 51 F.3d 861, 864-65 (9th Cir.1995) (concluding that the defendant’s retrial was “obviously” a continuation of the criminal prosecution and previous waiver was intended to stand absent an attempt to withdraw it (quoting Arnold v. United States, 414 F.2d 1056, 1059 (9th Cir.1969)); see also White v. United States, 354 F.2d 22, 23 (9th Cir.1965) . Our jurisprudence on this point is harmonious
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that constitution protected right to counsel at sentencing even where it was waived at trial
B. holding that an express waiver of the right to appeal the sentence was invalid because the trial court had failed properly to advise the defendant and that the defendant therefore did not waive his right to appeal the legality of his sentence
C. holding that the filing of a motion for a new trial is a critical stage of the prosecution and that an indigent defendant is constitutionally entitled to the assistance of counsel at that stage
D. holding that a valid waiver of counsel at an early stage of the proceeding does not continue in effect through a subsequent stage
E. holding that at resentencing the district court was entitled to assume that the waiver was still in effect and was not required to again advise defendant of his right to counsel where defendant had waived counsel at the plea stage
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.