Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
substances may have been marijuana being, used in a criminal enterprise in which the marijuana was delivered in amounts of less than one-fourth of an ounce, which would not constitute a felony offense. Considering the evidence, in the light most favorable to the challenged finding, indulging every reasonable inference that would support it, crediting favorable evidence if reasonable jurors could, and disregarding contrary evidence unless reasonable jurors could not, the trial evidence would not enable reasonable and fair-minded people to find that the money is contraband under the charge submitted to the jury. Therefore, the evidence is legally insufficient to support the jury’s finding that the seized money is contraband. 1 . See Osterberg v. Peca, 12 S.W.3d 31, 55 (Tex.2000) ; Hirschfeld Steel Co. v. Kellogg Brown & Root,
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. recognizing that a defendant physicians own practice was at least some evidence of the standard of care and concluding that the case was properly submitted to the jury notwithstanding the plaintiffs failure to call an independent expert on the standard of care
B. holding that jackson standard is only standard to use when determining sufficiency of evidence
C. holding that appellate court could not review the sufficiency of the evidence  based on a particular legal standard because that standard was not submitted to the jury and no party objected to the charge on this ground or requested that the jury be charged using this standard
D. holding that the standard of review for the sufficiency of the evidence is the same as the standard for denying a motion for a directed verdict
E. holding that even if the standard for waiver is clear the standard was not met
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.