Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
to secure a continuance on the morning of the hearing is a factor relevant to the decision-maker’s consideration of the promptness and good faith of her actions. See King v. District of Columbia Water and Sewer Auth., 803 A.2d 966, 970 (D.C.2002) (reversing agency’s dismissal of protest for non-appearance with the observation that the petitioner who telephoned the agency within an hour of the hearing with a plausible explanation for the inability to appear was not a classic “no-show”). Therefore, the ALJ should have addressed it. To the extent that the ALJ deemed it necessary for Frausto to substantiate her claim that she called the clerk’s office to request a continuance, the ALJ should have given her an opportunity to provide it. See Miranda v. Contreras, 754 A.2d 277, 280 (D.C.2000)  (quoting Starling, supra, 495 A.2d at 1162).
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. recognizing the trial courts responsibility to inquire where matters are raised which might entitle the movant to relief under rule 60b 
B. holding violation of rule 23a does not entitle petitioner to habeas relief
C. holding that rule 60b bars sua sponte relief
D. holding that rule 60b cannot provide any relief from the district courts judgment on an 18 usc  3582 motion because  3582 actions are criminal in nature and rule 60b is applicable only to civil proceedings
E. holding attorneys failure to object does not warrant rule 60b relief
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.