Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
failed to request a jury shuffle thereafter, the court of criminal appeals reversed, holding appellant had waived any “claim that his shuffle improperly included persons who did not ultimately sit on the jury panel.” Sanders v. State, 942 S.W.2d 3, 5 (Tex.Crim.App. 1997) (hereinafter “Sanders II”). Accordingly, the court remanded the case to this Court to address appellant’s remaining points of error. In his original brief to this Court, appellant raised thirteen points of error. On remand, he filed a brief containing four points of error — two from the original brief and two new points of error. The State contends that neither the rules of appellate procedure nor case law permit the raising of new points of error on remand. See Theus v. State, 863 S.W.2d 489, 491 (Tex.Crim.App.1993) ; see also Theus v. State, 874 S.W.2d 121, 126
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that the laterserved defendants  had thirty days from the date of service on them to file a notice of removal with the unanimous consent of their codefendants even though the firstserved codefendants did not file a notice of removal within thirty days of service
B. holding that appellant is not entitled to file new brief unless issue is raised by court of criminal appeals
C. holding that a party waives remand on the basis of a procedural defect by filing a motion to remand more than thirty days after the case is removed
D. holding that california supreme courts denial of habeas petition becomes final thirty days after filing
E. holding that remand from texas court of criminal appeals was equivalent to filing transcript and statement of facts thereby giving parties thirty days to file a brief
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.