Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
that the Notice of Appeal pertained to Omar Tecat in CR 02-575) App. at 7. 5 . That docket entry stated: Clerk's Quality Control Message: Document [3] NOTICE OF DOCKETING filed by the USCA should have been filed in the traditional manner, on paper, as this case is not subject to e-filing at this time, as previously explained on 7/19/05. (ck) App. at 2. 6 . The question has recently arisen in the courts of appeals as to whether Rules 3 and 4 of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure are rules that govern subject-matter jurisdiction (that may not be waived) or are merely "inflexible claim-processing” rules (that may be waived). This concern was sparked by the Supreme Court’s recent holdings in Eberhart v. United States, - U.S. -, 126 S.Ct. 403, 407, 163 L.Ed.2d 14 (2005) (per curiam) , and Kontrick v. Ryan, 540 U.S. 443, 455-456,
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that an issue not raised on appeal is waived
B. holding that kontrick and eberhart require the conclusion that rule 59e is a claimprocessing rule
C. holding that rule 33 of the federal rules of criminal procedure is an inflexible claimprocessing rule that may be waived if not raised
D. holding that the time limit to move for a new trial under federal rule of criminal pro cedure 33b2 is claimprocessing rule forfeited by governments failure to timely raise it
E. recognizing a presumption that a plea of guilty is final and binding if the plea was made during a properly conducted hearing pursuant to rule 11 of the federal rules of criminal procedure
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.