Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
did not provide transcripts from the hearing where the order was entered; her appeal only notes the order granting possession to the Trust, and at the sanctions hearings (transcripts of which Crockett did provide) she did not object to the entry of the order, only to the subsequent grant of possession. Even mindful that Crockett is proceeding pro se, we are unable to assess the initial entry of the protective order both because the point is raised for the first time on appeal, and because we have no record by which to evaluate the trial court’s exercise of discretion. See Wallace v. Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP, 799 A.2d 381, 388 (D.C.2002) (arguments not raised below are normally spurned on appeal); Van Durr v. Kator & Scott, Chartered, 788 A.2d 579, 580-81 (D.C.2002) ; Williams v. Dudley Trust Found., 675 A.2d 45,
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding a court can restrict future pro se pleadings if it first provides a pro se litigant notice and an opportunity to respond
B. holding that a defendant has a right to proceed pro se at trial
C. holding petitioners pro se status did not constitute adequate cause for failure to raise claims earlier
D. holding defendants pro se motion to reduce sentence was not properly before the trial court when defendant was represented by counsel since defendant may not proceed both by counsel and pro se
E. holding that this court was unable to reach alleged errors where pro se appellant did not provide an adequate record
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.