Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
the appeal waiver, Garza has filed a notice of appeal. The government moved to enforce the appeal waiver under United States v. Hahn, 359 F.3d 1315 (10th Cir.2004) (per curiam) (en banc). For the reasons explained below, we grant the motion and dismiss the appeal. In Hahn, 359 F.3d at 1325, we held that a waiver of appellate rights will be enforced if (1) “the disputed appeal falls within the scope of the waiver of appellate rights; (2) ... the defendant knowingly and voluntarily waived his appellate rights; and (3) ... enforcing the waiver would [not] result in a miscarriage of justice.” Garza concedes that his appeal falls within the scope of the waiver of appellate rights. We therefore need not address that factor. See United States v. Porter, 405 F.3d 1136, 1143 (10th Cir.2005) . We reject Garza’s argument that his waiver
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that a district court does not have to state on the record that it considered every  3553a factor
B. holding that a change in the law of sentencing does not constitute a new factor
C. holding that an administrator need not address each piece of evidence
D. recognizing that court need not address each hahn factor if defendant does not raise issue relating to that factor
E. holding factor b is not unconstitutionally vague
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.