Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
See Nev. Stat. Rev. §§ 34.800(2) (laches) & 34.810(2) (abuse of writ). We have held that sections 34.800 and 34.810 constitute “independent and adequate state grounds,” which bar federal habeas review, Moran v. McDaniel, 80 F.3d 1261, 1269 (9th Cir.1996) (§ 34.800); Vang v. Nevada, 329 F.3d 1069, 1075 (9th Cir.2003) (§ 34.810), and Davis has not demonstrated that we should reach a different result here. Davis cannot invoke ineffective assistance of counsel as a defense to procedural default, because he failed to raise this defense in state court. Murray v. Carrier, 477 U.S. 478, 488-89 (1986). Thus, Davis was not entitled to challenge the procedural default in an evidentiar stitutional jurisprudence. See Harmelin v. Michigan, 501 U.S. 957, 994-96, 111 S.Ct. 2680, 115 L.Ed.2d 836 (1991) . The district court did not violate Davis’s
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. recognizing that the right to be present can be waived in noncapital felony federal cases
B. recognizing constitutional right to be present when sentence is imposed
C. holding that district court did not abuse its discretion in denying motion for severance where the allegedly prejudicial evidence would have been admissible in separate trials
D. holding that defendants have a right to be present at voir dire
E. holding that defendants in noncapital trials have no constitutional right to present mitigating evidence in a separate penalty proceeding
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.