Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
of sole issue on appeal). Second, the government contends that Windland waived de novo review of the legal issue in this appeal by failing to object to the Magistrate Judge’s report and recommendation on the specific basis of the 160/161 day distinction. Again, although Windland could have been more specific, he did object to the Magistrate’s conclusion that his § 2254 petition was time-barred; as part of that objection, he also argued that the limitations period should have been tolled while his state action was pending. This objection alerted the district court to the pertinent issue in this appeal, namely that the Magistrate improperly found Windland’s § 2254 petition time-barred due to an erroneous tolling calculation. See United States v. Burton, 126 F.3d 666, 673 (5th Cir.1997) . Indeed, the district court independently
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that in order to preserve the issue a party must object to inconsistent verdicts prior to judgment being entered
B. holding that litigant must object at trial to preserve error for review
C. holding that to preserve an issue a party must object with sufficient specificity to allow the trial court to address it
D. holding that defendant must object at trial to preserve as applied challenge for appeal
E. holding that this court must remand to the bia to allow it to address in the first instance an issue that it has not yet considered
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.