Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
cruel and unusual punishment will be violated since he may be incompetent at the time of execution. These claims have been repeatedly rejected by this Court. See, e.g., Chavez v. State, 132 So.3d 826, 831 (Fla.), cert. denied, — U.S —, 134 S.Ct. 1156, — L.Ed.2d—(2014) (“Summary denial of a lethal injection challenge is proper where the asserted reasons ... are based upon conjecture or speculation.”); Henyard v. State, 992 So.2d 120, 130 (Fla.2008) (‘We [have] previously found section 945.10 facially constitutional and decline to recede from our decision now.”); Hall v. Moore, 792 So.2d 447, 450 (Fla.2001) (explaining that it is premature for a death-sentenced individual to present a claim of incompetency with regard to his execution if a death warrant has not been signed). III. HABEA . Moreover, as discussed above, this issue is
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that the defendants habeas claim was procedurally barred because it could have been or was raised in his postconviction motion
B. holding that circuit court should have treated the habeas petition as a motion for postconviction relief
C. holding that claims not raised in a timely postconviction motion are waived
D. holding that claims raised in a postconviction motion cannot be relitigated in a habeas petition
E. holding that a ground for relief not pled in a motion for postconviction relief is waived and cannot be raised on appeal
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.