Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
1306 (Fed.Cir.1999). When an appellant “states that a reason for a filing delay is physical or mental illness, [s]he must receive explicit information regarding the legal standard for establishing good cause on that basis, and [s]he must be afforded a fair opportunity to submit evidence and argument to show that [s]he met that standard.” Id. (quoting Lacy v. Dep’t of the Navy, 78 M.S.P.R. 434, 438 (1998)). The Lacy criteria provides that the petitioner be afforded an opportunity to (1) identify the time period during which she suffered from the illness, (2) submit corroborating evidence showing that she suffered from the illness during that time period, and (3) explain how the illness prevented her from timely filing an appeal or requesting an extension of time. 78 M.S.P.R. at 437 ; see Smith, 168 F.3d at 1306 (endorsing the
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that the corroborating evidence need not be medical evidence if the appellant explains why medical evidence is not available
B. holding that the state is not allowed to suppress evidence but it need not collect evidence for the defendant
C. holding that an aljs own medical analysis which is contrary to medical evidence is invalid
D. holding that new evidence is evidence not previously of record and not merely cumulative of other evidence
E. holding remedy for lack of sufficient corroborating evidence is acquittal
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.