Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
(rather than an erroneous application m.App.2002) (same); State v. Mercado, 972 S.W.2d 75, 77-78 (Tex.Crim.App.1998). It is thus not apparent how decisions such as Allen, holding that an appellate court may not affirm a trial court's granting of a motion to suppress ruling on a ground not raised in the . trial court, conforms with the holdings in Mercado, Martinez and Hailey. See State v. Allen, 53 S.W.3d 731, 733-34 (Tex.App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 2001, no pet.). 4 .In addition to other considerations, such as that the suppression ruling in the DWI case was not a final judgment on the merits and that jeopardy had not attached in that case, that ruling did not reflect a finding of any particular fact. See Ashe v. Swenson, 397 U.S. 436, 443, 90 S.Ct. 1189, 25 L.Ed.2d 469 (1970). In explaining its ruling in the present case,
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that collateral estoppel precludes future litigation between the same parties of ultimate facts that have been determined by valid and final judgments
B. holding that collateral estoppel applies to  1983 claims
C. holding that the debtor has the burden of showing that collateral estoppel applies
D. holding that collateral estoppel applies only where the antecedent judgment was a final judgment
E. holding that the doctrine of collateral estoppel applies when an issue of ultimate fact has necessarily been determined by a valid final judgment
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.