Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
of Criminal Procedure — Part III: Right to Jury Trial, Peremptory Challenges: Equal Protection Issues, 85 Geo. L.J. 1240, 1257 n. 1734 (1997). In addition, United States v. Chalan, 812 F.2d 1302 (10th Cir.1987), provides that if “the Government used its peremptory challenges to strike the last remaining juror of defendant’s race” (two were challenged for cause and one could have been challenged for cause — id. at 1312) it “raise[s] an inference” that that “juror was excluded” because of his race (Native American). Id. at 1314. In addition, United States v. Wills, 88 F.3 lding uncounseled Article 15s and summaty courts-martial may not be used as sentence enhancers). Counsel's conflict of interest. Compare Burger v. Kemp, 483 U.S. 776, 783, 107 S.Ct. 3114, 3120, 97 L.Ed.2d 638 (1987) with United States v. Smith, 36 MJ 455, 457
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding the existence of a possible conflict required remand for a determination of whether an actual conflict of interest existed and holding a new trial would be required if an actual conflict existed
B. holding defendant must demonstrate an actual conflict of interest adversely affected his lawyers performance
C. holding that defendant must demonstrate both that counsel actively represented conflicting interests and that an actual conflict of interest adversely affected his lawyers performance to establish a sixth amendment violation
D. holding that inmates must demonstrate an actual injury
E. holding that defense counsels performance was adversely affected by an actual conflict of interest if a specific and seemingly valid or genuine alternative strategy or tactic was available to defense counsel but it was inherently in conflict with his duties to others 
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.