Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
arises, of course, because many formulary orders are not meant to convey anything as to the reason for the decision. Attributing a reason is therefore both difficult and artificial. We think that the attribution necessary for federal habeas purposes can be facilitated, and sound results more often assured, by applying the following presumption: where there has been one reasoned state judgment rejecting a federal claim, later unexplained orders upholding that judgment or rejecting the same claim rest upon the same ground. If an earlier opinion “fairly appear[s] to rest primarily on federal law,” Coleman, [— U.S. at-], 111 S.Ct. at 2559, we will presume that no procedural default has been invoked by a subsequent unexplained order that leaves the judgmen 2d 737, 738 (N.Y.App.Div.1979) ; see also People v. Thompson, 79 A.D.2d 87,
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding batson challenge untimely because objection made after all jurors were sworn
B. holding that defendant waived his objection to the prosecutors use of her peremptory challenges by failing to make a contemporaneous objection during jury selection
C. holding that defendant waived any objection to a peremptory strike against a minority juror by affirmatively accepting jury immediately prior to its being sworn without reserving earliermade objection
D. holding objection to jury selection process waived where not raised until after entire panel had been sworn
E. holding that objection was timely even though objection was not made until after question was answered
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.