Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
is not dependent on the alleged merits of an appellant’s underlying claim. Boone, 409 S.W.3d at 598. Rather, the relevant inquiry in determining whether to apply the escape: rule is deciding whether the defendant’s escape adversely affected the criminal justice system. Id.; McCartney, 297 S.W.3d at 926. Here, Appellant twice failed to appear for sentencing. The trial court was forced to issue a capias warrant, and law enforcement had to locate, and apprehend Appellant out of state and transport him back to Missouri. The trial court had to, schedule three sentencing hearings, resulting in a delay of nearly six months. Appellant’s actions in absconding from justice adversely impacted the criminal justice system, warranting application of the escape rule. See Wagner, 172 S.W.3d at 924 ; McCartney, 297 S.W.3d at 926 (holding
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that willful failure to appear at sentencing supported obstruction of justice enhancement
B. holding a failure to appear for sentencing constitutes an escape under the rule
C. holding that failure to appear is also a continuing offense
D. holding that dismissal for failure to appear at a deposition is on the merits
E. holding that the defendants oral promise to appear was insufficient to amount to a required appearance within the meaning of the failure to appear statute
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.