Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255; (2) remand the claim to the district court for necessary factfinding; or (3) decide the claim on the record before us.” United States v. Gaskin, 364 F.3d 438, 468 (2d Cir.2004) (quoting United States v. Morris, 350 F.3d 32, 39 (2d Cir.2003)). Marzo contends that his trial counsel was ineffective in failing to realize, when advising him to admit to at least four instances of off-market trades, that Marzo could properly be found guilty on that conduct alone, without proof that he accepted cash kickbacks. We are not entirely convinced that Marzo’s counsel’s advice to admit to some off-market trades was unreasonable, rather than a reasonable strategic choice. See, e.g., Bell v. Miller, 500 F.3d 149, 156 (2d Cir.2007)  (quoting Strickland, 466 U.S. at 689, 104
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that because there were several reasons why counsel might have made a particular deci sion petitioner had failed to overcome the presumption that under the circumstances the challenged action might be considered sound trial strategy
B. holding that counsels conduct is entitled to the strong presumption that it falls within the wide range of reasonable professional assistance and the petitioner must overcome the presumption that the conduct might be considered sound trial strategy quoting michel v louisiana 350 us 91 101 76 sct 158 100 led 83 1955
C. holding that the ambiguity in the testimony of the cited jurors who were challenged for cause was insufficient to overcome the presumption of correctness owed to the trial courts findings
D. recognizing presumption and finding that it was overcome
E. holding that a defendant claiming ineffective assistance  must overcome the presumption that under the circumstances the challenged action might be considered sound trial strategy
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.