Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
form but it moved to a different section number. Tex Loc. Gov’t Code Ann. § 43.0561 (Vernon Supp.2001) (former § 43.052 (Vernon 1997)). 6 . In the alternative, if appellees’ complaint is that the ordinances were untimely or are ineffective because the City did not adopt an annexation plan, those deficiencies are procedural defects under the Local Government Code as previously discussed. 7 .There is no assertion that Farmco Trust and Morton do not qualify as "interested persons.” 8 . We have not found nor have the parties cited any cases interpreting the standing provision of the Open Meetings Act in the context of an annexation challenge. See, e.g., Laidlaw Waste Sys., 904 S.W.2d at 660 (assuming without deciding challenging party had standing); Alexander Oil, 825 S.W.2d at 437 n. 2 . 9 . The standing provision was adopted along
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that an issue not raised on appeal is waived
B. holding prosecutors withdrawal of standing objection at suppression hearing waived issue on appeal
C. holding individual standing issue waived
D. holding the issue of standing is waived if not asserted at the district court level
E. holding issue not raised in the bankruptcy court was waived on appeal
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.