Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
order affirmatively stated that, with the termination of his probation, “there are no conditions on his rights to practice law in the jurisdictions in which he is licensed, other than those conditions and standards that govern all attorneys so licensed.” As a result of the early termination, DeNisco was subject to court scrutiny — and subject to having his license suspended — for a shorter time than called for in the judgment. We also agree with the Commission that the ease is not moot because the substantial rights of the parties will be affected. Our ruling will determine whether DeNis-co’s disciplinary record will reflect the terms of the original judgment or the reduced period of probation. See Pinnacle Gas Treating, Inc. v. Read, 104 S.W.3d 544, 545-46 (Tex.2003) (per curiam) . Finally, we note that this issue appears to
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that court erred in dismissing minors claims with prejudice absent a hearing
B. recognizing under plain error review that the burden to show that substantial rights have been prejudiced is on the party that failed to raise the issue below and for an error to have affected substantial rights the error must have affected the outcome of the district court proceedings
C. holding that the trial court erred by dismissing the plaintiffs defamation claim
D. holding live controversy existed in appellate court because whether trial court erred in dismissing first of two condemnation proceedings affected substantial rights of parties
E. holding that district court erred in dismissing the indictment based on sufficiency of evidence
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.