Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
Lopez v. State, 25 S.W.3d 926, 928 (Tex.App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2000, no pet.); Moore v. State, 4 S.W.3d 269, 272 (Tex.App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 1999, no pet.); Minix v. State, 990 S.W.2d 922, 923 (Tex.App.—Beaumont 1999, pet. ref'd); Price v. State, 989 S.W.2d 435, 437 (Tex.App.—El Paso 1999, pet. ref'd); Hernandez v. State, 986 S.W.2d 817, 820 (Tex.App.—Austin 1999, pet. ref'd); Vidaurri v. State, 981 S.W.2d 478, 479 (Tex.App.—Amarillo 1998, pet. granted); Johnson v. State, 978 S.W.2d 744, 746 (Tex.App.—Eastland 1998, no pet.); Session v. State, 978 S.W.2d 289, 291-92 (Tex.App.—Texarkana 1998, no pet.); Rigsby v. State, 976 S.W.2d 368, 369 n. 1 (Tex.App.—Beaumont 1998, no pet.). 4 . But see Johnson v. State, 32 S.W.3d 444, 445-46 (Tex.App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2000, pet. filed) ; Lopez, 25 S.W.3d at 928 (same); Martinez v.
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that regulatory requirements are not jurisdictional in nature
B. recognizing the general rule that an appellate court will not address matters that were not raised or decided in the trial court  
C. holding that notwithstanding rule 252b3 requirements appellate court could address jurisdictional defects
D. holding that notice requirements under rule 252b3 are jurisdictional
E. recognizing general rule that an appellate court cannot address claims that were not raised below
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.