Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
factual offense. For the foregoing reasons, and based upon the circumstances of this case, the Court finds that Alston was not deprived of the Fifth Amendment’s protection against Double Jeopardy. The Appellate Division’s affir-mance of Alston’s conviction on one count of first degree rape was neither an incorrect, nor an unreasonable application of clearly established Supreme Court double jeopardy jurisprudence. CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, petitioner Bernard Alston’s request for a writ of habeas corpus is denied and the petition is dismissed. Because petitioner has failed to make a substantial showing of a denial of a constitutional right, I decline to issue a certificate of appealability. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1); Lozada v. United States, 107 F.3d 1011, 1013 (2d Cir.1997) . IT IS SO ORDERED. 1 . People v. Sandoval, 34
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that under 28 usc  2253c1 certificate of appealability may issue only if the applicant has made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right
B. holding that order denying relief under fedrcivp 60b in a habeas setting is the final order in a habeas corpus proceeding subject to the certificate of appealability requirement of 28 usc  2253c1a 2000
C. holding that a certificate of appealability issued without meeting the substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right requirement nonetheless suffices to confer appellate jurisdiction quoting 28 usc  2253c2
D. holding that if the court denies a habeas petition on procedural grounds the certificate of appealability must show that jurists of reason would find debatable two issues 1 that the district court was correct in its procedural ruling and 2 that the applicant has established a valid constitutional violation emphasis in original
E. holding that appellate jurisdiction is limited to the issues contained in the certificate of appealability
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.