Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
“there is evidence upon which the jury could rationally sustain the defense.” United States v. Jackson, 726 F.2d 1466, 1468 (9th Cir.1984) (per curiam). On the other hand, a trial court may preclude a defense theory where “the evidence, as described in the defendant’s offer of proof, is insufficient as a matter of law to support the proffered defense.” United States v. Dorrell, 758 F.2d 427, 430 (9th Cir.1985). Counsel must also “articulate every ground on which the evidence is admissible, since a ground not identified at trial will not provide a basis for reversal on appeal.” Jack B. Weinstein and Margaret Berger, Weinstein’s Federal Evidence, § 130.20[5], p. 103-39 (Joseph M. McLaughlin, ed., Matthew Bender 2d. ed.2008); see also Hudspeth v. Comm’r, 914 F.2d 1207, 1215 (9th Cir.1990) . In support of his assertion of the return of
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that the failure to grant a sentencing departure on an unrequested ground is reviewable only for plain error
B. holding that failure to define knowingly was not plain error
C. holding that forfeiture which is a simple failure to raise an issue merits plain error review
D. holding that failure to identify ground of admissibility limited appellate review to plain error
E. holding that failure to define possession was not plain error
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.