Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
its attendant inferences in the light most favorable to the non-moving party. Id. at 760. However, we do not even reach the application of this stringent standard here because defendant failed to preserve the sufficiency of the evidence issue for appeal. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 50 provides that “[m]otions for judgment as a matter of law may be made at any time before submission of the case to the jury.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 50(a)(2). This case was submitted to the jury on February 24, 2003, judgment was entered on February 26, and Autocentro moved for judgment as a matter of law for the first time on March 10. Simply put, defendant’s failure to move for judgment as a matter of law at the close of evidence procedurally defaults this claim on appeal. See, e.g., Keisling, 19 F.3d at 758 . As we observed in Keisling: “[rjequiring the
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that defendants failure to renew their motion for judgment as a matter of law which was denied by the district court when they made it at the close of the evidence limited the relief the appellate court could grant to a new trial
B. recognizing that to preserve a claim of insufficiency of the evidence a defendant must move for judgment of acquittal when the government rests or at the close of all the evidence
C. holding that even when a defendant moves under rule 50 at the close of plaintiffs evidence  and autocentro did not even do that  if a defendant wishes to renew a motion for judgment as a matter of law at the posttrial stage with a view to having denial of that motion considered by the court of appeals the defendant is required to have moved for judgment as a matter of law at the close of all the evidence
D. holding that a party who fails to comply with rule 50 by moving for judgment as a matter of law at the close of all the evidence wholly waives the right to mount any posttrial attack on the sufficiency of the evidence
E. holding that court erred as matter of law in failing to enter judgment for employer at close of plaintiffs implied employment contract action
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.