Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
from the date on which they were taken.”). Ganesan argues he is entitled to a new trial because he “timely requested” the record and it was lost or destroyed “without appellant’s fault.” See Tex.R.App. P. 34.6(f). The Texas Supreme Court has expressly held that “[i]f a litigant has not requested the reporter to prepare a statement of the facts within three years, nor specifically requested that the notes of a proceeding be preserved beyond three years, then the litigant is not free from fault....” See Piotrowski, 873 S.W.2d at 371. Because Ganesan could have requested the reporter to prepare the record within three years of the proceeding, or at minimum requested that the record be preserved, he is not free from fault. Accordingly, he is not entitled to a new trial. See id. at 370 . Appellant argues that his request for the
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding appellant is not entitled to a new trial unless the reporters notes have been lost or destroyed without appellants fault and the parties cannot agree on a statement of facts
B. holding that motion for a new trial whether for guilt or punishment requires a valid legal claim a court cannot grant a new trial unless the defendant shows that he is entitled to one under the law
C. holding that if appellant preserves legal sufficiency complaint in motion for new trial new trial is all the relief appellate court can give because that is all the relief appellant requested in trial court
D. holding that plaintiff cannot introduce new allegations or new facts in opposition to a motion to dismiss
E. holding trial court reversibly erred in not permitting appellant to withdraw his plea where court erroneously stated appellant could appeal motion was in fact not dispositive and appellant was entitled to rely on the courts statement
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.