Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
reasonable doubt “without regard” to the historical practice of juries. To the extent the district court repeated the prosecutor’s statement in sustaining the defendants’ objection, it was to illustrate that the district court’s instructions would render the prosecutor’s remark irrelevant. And, as noted above, before the jury deliberated, the district court gave the jury detailed instructions on the meaning of reasonable doubt. Even assuming some residual prejudicial effect remained, the prosecutor’s statement did not affect Ortiz’s and Rolon’s substantial rights because — in light of the substantial independent evidence of their guilt — no reasonable probability exists that this statement altered the outcome of the trial. See United States v. Adams, 74 F.3d 1093, 1097 (11th Cir.1996) . As we note elsewhere in our discussion,
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding reasonable probability is a probability sufficient to undermine confidence in the outcome
B. holding that to establish stricklandpierce prejudice in the appellate representation context the petitioner must show that there is a reasonable probability that the outcome of the direct appeal proceeding would have been different but for counsels deficient performance
C. holding that counsels failure to question the venire regarding the zehr principles did not constitute ineffective assistance where there was no reasonable probability that the outcome of the case would have been different
D. holding that a defendant must show reasonable probability that but for the error he would not have entered the plea
E. holding that improper prosecutorial references did not raise a reasonable probability that but for the remarks the outcome would be different due to sufficient independent evidence establishing guilt
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.