Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
and waived, as indicated by his initials, reads, “I expressly do not desire to consult with either a civilian lawyer retained by me or a military lawyer appointed as my counsel without cost to me prior to questioning.” Appellant also acknowledged waiver of these rights when questioned by the military judge at trial regarding the written waiver. Furthermore, Appellant acknowledged that his civilian attorney told him not to go into questioning without him and Appellant intentionally ignored that advice. Based on Appellant’s own testimony and actions in reviewing and signing the Article 31, UCMJ, rights form at the time of the interrogation, Appellant waived any right he may have had to have his counsel notified of and be present at the interrogation. See LeMasters, 39 M.J. at 493 . The current version of M.R.E. 305(e) does not
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that defenses under rule 60b may be waived
B. holding that notice to counsel may be waived
C. holding standing cannot be waived and may thus be raised at any time
D. recognizing that immunity may be waived
E. holding that notice to supervisor is notice to city
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.