Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
v. City of Presque Isle, 1998 ME 166, 715 A.2d 148, a plaintiff claiming a Freedom of Access violation was required to file a motion pursuant to Rule 80B(d) in order to present evidence to the Superior Court. See Moreau v. Town of Turner, 661 A.2d 677, 679 (Me.1995); Palesky v. Town of Topsham, 614 A.2d 1307, 1310 n. 3 (Me.1992) Marxsen v. Board of Dirs., M.S.A.D. No. 5, 591 A.2d 867, 871 (Me.1991). In Underwood, we expressly overruled Marxsen to the extent it required a Rule 80B(d) motion in order for evidence to be presented in a Freedom of Access case. We did so because 1 M.R.S.A. § 409(2) (1989) provides a claimant a trial de novo in the Superior Court. See Underwood, 1998 ME 166, ¶ 22, 715 A.2d at 155; see also Service & Erection Co. v. State Tax Assessor, 684 A.2d 1, 2 (Me.1996)  Although in Underwood we did not mention the
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding no requirement of rule 80bd motion in tax appeal where statute provides for trial de novo
B. holding that review of the construction of a sentencing statute is de novo
C. holding that review of a rule 60b4 motion is de novo
D. recognizing ruling on motion for judgment of acquittal is reviewed de novo on appeal
E. recognizing de novo standard of review
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.