Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
exists a “longstanding rule requiring a clear statement of congressional intent to repeal habeas jurisdiction.” Id. Because Congress failed to articulate a “clear, unambiguous, and express statement of congressional intent to preclude judicial consideration on habeas,” the Court concluded that the IIRIRA did not eliminate habeas jurisdiction. Id. at 314, 121 S.Ct. 2271. The petitioner notes that as in St. Cyr, several circuit courts have held that because 28 U.S.C. § 2242(d) does not contain a sufficiently clear and unambiguous expression of congressional intent to limit judicial review of habeas petitions brought under the FARR Act, that provision does not strip district courts of habeas jurisdiction over FARR Act claims. See Cadet v. Bulger, 377 F.3d 1173, 1182-83 (11th Cir.2004) ; Singh v. Ashcroft, 351 F.3d 435, 441 (9th
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that managing conservator while in texas to seek return of child by writ of habeas corpus may not be served with civil process and is subject to jurisdiction of court in which habeas corpus is pending and only for purpose of prosecuting writ of habeas corpus
B. holding that because the farr act does not expressly mention habeas corpus or 28 usc  2241 it does not eliminate habeas jurisdiction
C. holding that federal habeas corpus relief does not lie for errors of state law
D. holding plain statement rule applicable in habeas corpus proceedings pursuant to 28 usc  2254
E. holding that because 28 usc  2241 habeas corpus relief is available to review constitutional claims congress preclusion of direct appeals in iirira see tion 309c4g does not offend the due process clause of the constitution
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.