Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
a prisoner must surmount on 7 (4th Cir.), cert. denied,-U.S.-, 124 S.Ct. 496, 157 L.Ed.2d 395 (2003) ("We emphasize that we do not require that all Rule 60(b) motions be treated as successive applications; instead, the proper treatment of the motion depends on the nature of the claims presented.”); Dunlap v. Litscher, 301 F.3d 873, 876 (7th Cir.2002) (allowing the use of Rule 60(b) to reopen previous habeas cases as long as the substance of the using a Rule 60(b) motion to set aside the denial of habeas, but has expressly declined to decide whether such Rule 60(b) motions are always successive habeas petitions. Hess v. Cockrell, 281 F.3d 212, 215 (5th Cir.2002). The position of the Third Circuit is not clear. See United States v. Edwards, 309 F.3d 110, 113 (3d Cir.2002) (per curiam) . 4 . Harris concedes in his brief that he had
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that motion for reconsideration would be construed not as a rule 60b motion but rather as an unauthorized successive motion under  2255 which the district court may have been without jurisdiction to consider
B. holding that a certificate of appealability is unnecessary where a district court dismisses a rule 60b motion as an unauthorized successive habeas motion
C. holding without extended discussion that even if the district court should have construed the petitioners motion under 18 usc  3582c2 as a rule 60b motion the court would nonetheless have had to recharacterize the rule 60b motion as an sshp
D. holding that motion filed under fedrcivp 60b properly construed as successive  2255 motion
E. holding that the court did not have jurisdiction to consider an argument not presented to the board in a motion for reconsideration
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.