Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
identity of the owner and operator of Hospital Damas) and that the issue was actually litigated before and adjudicated by the bankruptcy court—were erroneous. Along similar lines, L.C.V. does not make any argument with respect to prongs three and four: that the bankruptcy court decided the issue in a final judgment and that the resolution of the issue was essential to the bankruptcy court’s judgment on the merits. In light of L.C.V.’s failure to offer a discrete argument that any of these issue-preclusion prerequisites have not been met, we need not dwell on them. See Robb Evans, 850 F.3d at 32 (sidestepping consideration of three prerequisites that were not challenged by party resisting issue preclusion and limiting analysis to only prerequisite in dispute); Daniels, 736 F.3d at 88 . Instead, we proceed to tackle L.C.V.’s
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that party resisting issue preclusion waived for lack of developed argumentation any argument that issue was not the same in earlier and later cases
B. holding that issue in motion for rehearing is waived if original brief is not sufficient to acquaint the court with the issue and does not present an argument that would allow the court to decide the issue
C. holding that the petitioners failure to address an issue in the argument portion of his opening brief waived the issue
D. holding that the appellant developed his argument sufficiently to raise the issue for appellate review
E. holding that the doctrine of issue preclusion applies in removal proceedings
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.