Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
If this is all it took to admit evidence of other crimes, district courts would be reluctant to exclude evidence of dissimilar bank robberies in neighboring counties for weeks thereafter. Although we appreciate the fact that the legal standard for admitting reverse 404(b) evidence is relatively lenient, the evidence must still be relevant. Here, it was not. Even if the evidence involving the New Baden robbery should have been admitted, its exclusion was harmless in light of the overwhelming evidence presented by the government at trial. We employ the harmless error standard because the defendants preserved their objection on this issue when they challenged the government’s motion in limine. See Fed. R. Evid. 103; see also Wilson v. Williams, 182 F.3d 562, 563 (7th Cir.1999) (en banc) . This court will only reverse a defendant’s
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that an objection raised in a motion to suppress evidence preserves the issue for appeal despite the lack of further objection at trial
B. holding litigant preserves an issue on appeal where substance of the objection has been thoroughly explored during the hearing on the motion in limine
C. holding that a definitive ruling in limine preserves an issue for appellate review without the need for later objection
D. holding a contemporaneous objection is required to preserve an issue for appellate review
E. holding grant or denial of motion in limine is preliminary ruling and normally preserves nothing for appellate review
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.