Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
us would certainly fail to protect a defendant’s best interests and might leave the conviction on otherwise time-barred offenses vulnerable to collateral attack Id. at 309. We can glean at least four legal principles from court decisions involving the two distinct scenarios discussed above: First, the statute of limitations is waivable by a defendant, either expressly or through his own actions. Tucker, 459 So.2d at 306; Sturdivan v. State, 419 So.2d 300, 302 (Fla. 1982) (observing “a defendant may by his actions waive this defense.”) Second, because it is waivable, the statute of limitations necessarily cannot be considered “jurisdictional,” at least not in the sense of depriving the trial court of subject-matter jurisdiction. See Rodriguez v. State, 441 So.2d 1129 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983) ; Farrar v. State, 42 So.3d 265, 265 (Fla. 5th
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding statute of limitations is jurisdictional and may be raised at any time but noting other ohio appellate courts have held the statute of limitations is not jurisdictional and may be waived if not asserted at the trial level
B. holding statute of limitations is not jurisdictional and can be waived by a voluntary plea of guilty
C. holding that the statute of limitations defense does not deprive court of subject matter jurisdiction to the extent the statute of limitations may be considered in any sense a jurisdictional impediment it is one which can be waived
D. holding that the aedpa statute of limitations is not jurisdictional
E. holding that the statute of limitations is nonjurisdictional and defendant expressly waived it observing in dicta that a statute of limitations defense should be raised no later than the trial
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.