Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
(7th Cir.2001). Nor must we consider the preliminary question of whether the Superintendent should be deemed to have waived any objection to that hearing by not raising the issue on appeal. See Aeid, 296 F.3d at 64 (declining, where this Court could dispose of the case on its merits, to address the argument that the respondent had waived any objection to an evidentiary hearing by repeated failures to object to the hearing); Bryan v. Mullin, 335 F.3d 1207, 1214 (10th Cir.2003) (declining to address “what steps a respondent must undertake to preserve an objection, predicated on § 2254(e)(2), to a district court decision to grant a habeas petitioner an evidentiary hearing,” where the district court had not erred in holding the hearing); cf. Acosta v. Artuz, 221 F.3d 117, 121 (2d Cir.2000) . 16 . In Sparman v. Edwards, 154 F.3d 51, 52
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that a district court has the power to raise the aedpa limitations period sua sponte because the defense implicates values beyond the interests of the parties
B. holding that the court can raise res judicata sua sponte even on appeal
C. holding that a district court has the discretion to raise a  2254 timeliness consideration sua sponte
D. holding that a district court has the authority to raise the aedpa statute of limitations on its own motion
E. holding that the district court had no right to apply the statute of limitations sua sponte because it had been waived
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.