Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
plain, and (3) that affects substantial rights.” Id. If plain error occurred, relief is warranted where the error “seriously affects the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of judicial proceedings.” Id. The district court failed to give MoraAngel notice of its intent to impose an above-guideline sentence that included the court’s factual and legal basis for so doing. Evans-Martinez, 448 F.3d at 1167 (explaining that parties must receive notice of the basis for the variance so that the issues can be “fully aired”); United States v. Hinojosa-Gonzalez, 142 F.3d 1122, 1123 (9th Cir.1998) (per curiam) (“Both factual and legal grounds for departure are within Rule 32’s reach.”); see also Fed.R.CrimJP. 32(h); Burns v. United States, 501 U.S. 129, 138-39, 111 S.Ct. 2182, 115 L.Ed.2d 123 . The district court’s failure to do so
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that the statement of specific grounds in a motion for a new trial waives all other grounds not specified
B. holding that notice must state the specific grounds for the departure
C. holding that where specific grounds for an objection are stated at trial all other grounds are waived and will not be considered for the first time on appeal
D. holding that defendants diminished capacity while grounds for departure from the guidelines sentencing range is not grounds for departure below the minimum sentence set by congress
E. recognizing that postoffense rehabilitative efforts while normally not grounds for departure may support departure in extraordinary circumstances and noting that the totality of the circumstances may justify a departure where a single circumstance is not alone sufficient
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.