Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
prosecution, a reasonable juror could conclude that (1) Ms. Colwell sold Carter the green Chrysler that was recovered by Officer Oliver; (2) Carter was the man Ms. Ford saw enter the Hartsville Citgo station and change into coveralls shortly before the bank robbery; (3) Carter was the man whom Ms. Cornwell saw at the carwash before the bank robbery; (4) Carter’s green car was the same car that Mr. Holder saw the robber drive away in after the robbery; (5) it was Carter who fled from both Officer Oliver and Sergeant Lanier; and (6) Carter fled because he knew he committed the robbery at the Hartsville Bank. In sum, a rational fact finder could decide that Carter was the man who robbed Hartsville Bank on October 15, 1996. See, e.g., United States v. Bond, 22 F.3d 662, 667 (6th Cir.1994) . 11 . The district court included the
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that the defendants allegations that his codefendant admitted that the defendant had no role in the robbery and that the codefendant had not testified on the defendants behalf because he had been coerced by the state were sufficient to state a prima facie claim of newly discovered evidence
B. holding that there was sufficient evidence for a robbery conviction where the getaway car a red firebird was identified by an individual who followed the vehicle and wrote down the license plate the firebird had been stolen from a gas station in a nearby city several weeks earlier the firebird had a defendants fingerprints both on its inside and outside on the drivers side a friend of one defendant testified that he had seen him driving a red firebird two or three weeks before the robbery a music tape reported missing by the owner of the firebird was found in one defendants house ammunition for handguns a spent shotgun shell and stacks of cash sorted by denomination were found in one defendants house a friend testified that the defendants confided in him about the robbery and an fbi agent testified that he overheard the defendants talking about killing a person who planned to testify against them
C. holding that defendants false statement was material even though the grand jury was not certain that the defendant had lied until several weeks later when three witnesses testified contrary to the defendant
D. holding that the defendants sentence for robbery was not inappropriate
E. holding that there was sufficient evidence of premeditation and deliberation when the defendant previously planned to commit the robbery armed himself with a shotgun and shot the victim during the robbery
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.