Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
test to determine substantial and sustained contacts pursuant to FRE 701). Further, Van Meter’s testimony’s probative value outweighed any prejudicial effect resulting in no violation of FRE 403. See United States v. Henderson, 68 F.3d 323, 327-28 (9th Cir.1995). Third, the district court did not err in denying appellant’s request to represent himself, finding that such requests were delaying tactics. See United States v. Flewitt, 874 F.2d 669, 675 (9th Cir.1989) (noting that if the “request [to proceed pro se] is part of a pattern of dilatory activity, the court has the discretion to deny the continuance and require the defendant to proceed to trial on the scheduled date either with the counsel designated or pro se”); see also Jackson v. Ylst, 921 F.2d 882, 888 (9th Cir.1990) . Fourth, we reject appellant’s request for a
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding the request to represent oneself to be untimely because it was made only after a motion for substitute counsel and new trial was denied
B. holding that a university regulation entitled the substitute motion which denied admission or readmission iranian students to new mexico state university was unconstitutional because the true purpose in enacting the substitute motion was to make a political statement
C. holding that batson challenge raised for the first time after trial was untimely in part because only remedy after trial is vacating the conviction
D. holding that the claim accrued after the employer denied a request for arbitration as untimely under the collective bargaining agreement
E. holding that denial of untimely request was not abuse of discretion
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.