Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
judgment that the relevant state-court decision applied clearly established federal law erroneously or incorrectly.” Id. at 411, 120 S.Ct. 1495. Furthermore, under the AEDPA, state-court determinations of factual issues “shall be presumed to be correct,” unless the petitioner rebuts the presumption “by clear and convincing evidence.” 28 U.S.C. § 2254(e)(1); Coombs v. Maine, 202 F.3d 14, 18 (1st Cir.2000). Chief Judge Boudin reminded us in Fortini v. Murphy that AEDPA adopts a strict standard of review by federal courts to a claim adjudicated on the merits in state court proceedings. 257 F.3d 39, 47 (1st Cir.2001). Niland contends that the state court never addressed his constitu tional claim on the merits and therefore, the strict deferential standard of review is inapplicable. Id. . We disagree with Niland. A review of the
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. recognizing that wiggins established de novo standard of review for any claim that was not addressed by the state courts
B. holding that de novo standard of review applies on federal claims never addressed by state courts
C. holding that appellant was entitled to a de novo review however he was not entitled to a de novo review of an argument never raised
D. recognizing de novo standard of review
E. holding that we review legal conclusions of the court of federal claims de novo
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.