Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
It is evident from the state court filings that Schubert and his counsel suspected, alleged, and had , evidentiary support for this claim long before commencing federal habeas proceedings. Schubert’s ineffective assistance of counsel arguments fail because he has not raised a “substantial” claim under Martinez v. Ryan, — U.S.-, 132 S.Ct. 1309, 182 L.Ed.2d 272 (2012). Trevino v. Thaler, — U.S. -, 133 S.Ct. 1911, 1918, 185 L.Ed.2d 1044 (2013). 4. Because Schubert knew or should have known at the time of his original filing the facts and theories upon which he based his late proposal for amendment, the district court did not abuse its discretion when it denied Schubert leave to amend his petition to add a new Fifth Amendment claim. See Bonin v. Calderon, 59 F.3d 815, 845-46 (9th Cir.1995) . AFFIRMED. ** This disposition is not
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying motion for new trial based on newly discovered evidence where the evidence would serve only to impeach  testimony
B. holding that a district court does not abuse its discretion in denying a motion to amend where the movant presents no new facts but only new theories and provides no satisfactory explanation for his failure to fully develop his contentions originally
C. holding that district court had not abused its discretion in denying plaintiffs motion to amend complaint
D. holding that district court erred in denying leave to amend complaint to add new legal theories even though trial was approaching
E. holding that district court did not abuse its discretion in denying a motion to strike when movant failed to show prejudice
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.