Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
v. Taylor, 54 F.3d 967, 972 (1st Cir.1995) (“In general, the law ministers to the vigilant, not to those who sleep upon perceptible rights.”). Thus, the government argues that the defense’s failure immediately to object when Kevin was asked about convictions in addition to his unlawful sexual contact convictions constrains this court from considering the matter on appeal absent plain error. Fed.R.Crim.P. 52(b); Olano, 507 U.S. at 732-37, 113 S.Ct. 1770. Examination of the transcript, however, reveals that Meserve’s attorney objected as soon as it became obvious that the government’s line of questioning was in violation of Rule 609, i.e., when the government indicated that the conviction about which it was asking was a twenty-year-old disorderly conduct conviction. To 17 (D.C.Cir.1966) , with United States v. Benavente Gomez, 921
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that objection by defense counsel that he did not see the relevance of the evidence was not a proper relevancy objection
B. holding that defendants objection to personal jurisdiction was forfeited where defendant did not object before he entered his plea
C. holding that defense counsels failure to object until after he learned the nature of the document being used to refresh the defendants recollection did not render objection nugatory
D. holding that defense counsels failure to object to testimony did not warrant a new trial because there was no prejudice from admission of the testimony
E. holding that counsel could have reasonably determined that the trial court would not sustain a rule 403 objection therefore counsels failure to object to this evidence was not deficient performance
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.