Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
that he acted in conformity therewith * * * [s]o, it’s not used to show the defendant committed this particular crime. He’s presumed innocent. [E]vidence of any other unlawful activity is not used to show that someone has the capacity to commit a crime.” Having withdrawn his objection to the admission of his prior-arson reference, defendant did not object to this instruction or request any supplementation or alteration to its wording. As a result, this instruction became the law of the case. See, e.g., State v. Giordano, 413 A.2d 93, 94 (R.I.1980). Hence we must not only presume that the jury followed this instruction, but also we will not allow defendant to complain about the adequacy of this charge on appeal when he failed to do so at the trial. See, e.g., Cardoza, 649 A.2d at 748 . However, notwithstanding this instruction,
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that in admitting evidence the failure of the trial court to give a limiting instruction sua sponte is not reversible error
B. holding that failure to give a limiting instruction for 404b evidence is not plain error
C. holding that when defendant argued on appeal that the trial justice should have given the jury a sua sponte limiting instruction regarding alleged rule 404b evidence defendants failure to object at trial constituted a waiver of that issue
D. holding that the failure to object to a trial courts instruction constitutes waiver
E. holding that the defendant had waived any challenge to the district courts failure to give a limiting instruction addressing rule 404b evidence by failing to request one at trial or raise the issue on appeal
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.