Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
261 S.W.3d at 368-69; Starrin, 2005 WL 3343875, at *1. We agree that if section 547.3215 had been relied upon by the officer and argued in the trial court, it would have made Officer Gilbert’s traffic stop abundantly reasonable. But nothing at the suppression hearing—not Officer Gilbert’s testimony and not the argument of counsel—presented that theory to the trial court. In this case, the State effectively relied strictly on subsections (a) and (c) of section 547.323 of the transportation code. Elsewhere in the State’s brief, it conceded that its failure to rely on section 547.3215 at trial precludes it from relying on that provision here on appeal. Any reliance on section 547.3215 was not preserved. See Tex. R. App. P. 33.1; State v. Mercado, 972 S.W.2d 75, 78 (Tex. Crim. App. 1998) . Because the State did not rely on section
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that issues not argued in initial brief are deemed waived
B. holding that in cases in which the state is the party appealing the basic principle of appellate jurisprudence that contentions not argued at trial are deemed to be waived applies equally to the state and the defense
C. holding that issues not argued on appeal are deemed abandoned
D. holding that claims made but not argued in a brief are waived
E. recognizing that state agencies which are independent of the state are citizens of the state
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.