Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
held that “a Rule 19 objection can even be noticed on appeal by a reviewing court sua sponte.” Pickle v. Int’l Oilfield Divers, Inc., 791 F.2d 1237, 1242 (5th Cir.1986) (citing Provident Tradesmens Bank & Trust Co. v. Patterson, 390 U.S. 102, 88 S.Ct. 733, 19 L.Ed.2d 936 (1968)); Kimball v. Florida Bar, 537 F.2d 1305, 1307 (5th Cir.1976); see 7 Charles Alan Wright & Arthur R. Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure § 1609 (3d ed. 2001); see also GTE Sylvania v. Consumer Product Safety, 598 F.2d 790, 798-99 (3d Cir.1979) (recognizing the power of the court to raise the issue sua sponte but declining to do so where “[the parties] could have intervened in the ... litigation without significant burden.”) (emphasis added). But see Hoots v. Pennsylvania, 495 F.2d 1095, 1096 n. 3 (3d Cir.1974) . Further, “a court of appeals should, on its
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that a ruling of the trial court to which no error has been assigned becomes the law of the case and is not subject to review by the court of appeals
B. holding that issues not raised in the trial court may not be raised later on appeal
C. holding that an issue not raised in the trial court cannot be raised for the first time on appeal
D. recognizing the general rule that a court of appeals will not consider an issue raised for the first time on appeal
E. holding that a court of appeals may only do so when an appeal has been raised by an existing party to the case
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.