Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
and relies upon the decision in Commonwealth v. Gibson, 597 Pa. 402, 951 A.2d 1110, 1122-23, for doing so. See op. at 482-85, 967 A.2d at 391-92. However, Gibson involved a first post-conviction request for collateral relief in which the petitioner was not required to establish that a miscarriage of justice had occurred. I believe the Majority accords insufficient weight to the fact that Appellant has already had the benefit of collateral review of his death sentence. The consequences of this are of great significance: in the context of a serial PCRA petition, unless Appellant can make a strong prima facie showing that a miscarriage of justice has resulted, he is not entitled to any relief from his judgment of sentence. Commonwealth v. Lawson, 519 Pa. 504, 549 A.2d 107, 112 (1988) - A petitioner makes a prima facie showing if
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that in the case of state procedural default a federal habeas review of the claims is barred unless the prisoner can demonstrate among other things that failure to consider the claims will result in a fundamental miscarriage of justice
B. holding that request for resentencing based on pepper was not cognizable in a  2255 proceeding absent a showing of a complete miscarriage of justice
C. holding that prima facie eligibility is demonstrated by a showing that there is a reasonable likelihood that the statutory requirements for relief have been satisfied
D. holding that courts may only review claims for fundamental miscarriage of justice
E. holding that a second request for collateral relief will not be entertained unless a strong prima facie showing is offered to demonstrate that a miscarriage of justice may have occurred
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.