Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
that the State satisfied its burden of proof. Therefore, counsel’s failure to object was not deficient. We also find that the prosecutor’s alleged improper vouching for Skalnik was a fair comment in response to defense counsel’s attack on Skalnik’s credibility during closing argument. Defense counsel referred to Skalnik as a “professional thief’ and a poor police officer. The State was entitled to rebut these comments. Accordingly, Dailey has failed to demonstrate that counsel’s failure to object constitutes deficient performance. With regard to the prosecutor’s alleged “blatant misstatement of fact” concerning Shaw’s testimony, this claim was never raised in Dailey’s postcon-viction motion. Therefore, it is not cognizable on appeal. See Gordon v. State, 863 So.2d 1215, 1219 (Fla.2003) . Dailey also argues that the cumulative effect
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that a ground for relief not pled in a motion for postconviction relief is waived and cannot be raised on appeal
B. holding that defendants 3850 motion for postconviction relief was procedurally barred as successive where the defendants current rule 3850 motion is one that could have or should have been raised in his first rule 3850 motion
C. holding that the defendants habeas claim was procedurally barred because it could have been or was raised in his postconviction motion
D. holding that a claim is proeedurally barred where it was not raised in the defendants motion for postconviction relief
E. holding that claims not raised in a timely postconviction motion are waived
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.