Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
Cuyahoga App. No. 80793, 2002-Ohio-7058, 2002 WL 31838501, at ¶ 24. Likewise, this court is bound by those same factual findings, and our review is limited to whether the trial court abused its discretion in adopting the magistrate’s decision. {¶ 20} Moreover, we must reject Yu’s argument that resolution of the residency issue may be based on documents not identified in the magistrate’s decision. “Without a transcript, * * * neither the trial court nor a reviewing court would know whether any exhibits not identified by the magistrate were admitted, authenticated, or ever actually introduced into evidence. A review of such exhibits * * * exceeds the proper boundaries of appellate review.” Id. at ¶ 25. But see Natsis, 2002-Ohio-7058, 2002 WL 31838501, at ¶ 36 (O’Donnell, J., dissenting) . {¶ 21} Here, Yu’s reliance on the documents
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that trial court has no duty to establish waiver on record
B. holding parole board has no duty to examine validity of prisoners convictions
C. holding that court must examine and consider the entire writing in an effort to harmonize and give effect to all the provisions of the contract so that none will be rendered meaningless
D. holding that the trial court must examine the entire course of criminal conduct in determining possession
E. holding that a trial court has a duty to examine the entire record including all physical documentary evidence in order to reach an equitable result
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.