Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
1, 40, 748 A.2d 1, cert. denied, 359 Md. 335, 753 A.2d 1032 (2000). Thus, even if the issue were preserved for review, we would discern no reversible error. Nor do we see reversible error in the prosecutor’s reaction, in the jury’s presence, to the objection when it came. At the bench conference that followed, counsel for appellant Varela objected to the prosecutor’s “giving his theory of expert testimony in front of the jury.” The court admonished the prosecutor to desist from making such statements in front of the jury. No further relief was requested by any appellant. In the absence of a request for relief, either in the form of a curative instruction or a mistrial, appellants have nothing about which to complain. See Lamb v. State, 141 Md.App. 610, 644-45, 786 A.2d 783 (2001) . In any event, we are hard pressed to find
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding harmless an inadmissible comment as prejudicial effect was removed by district courts curative instruction
B. holding that where an objection is sustained and curative instruction given and no further relief such as a mistrial additional curative instruction or striking of the offending comment is requested there is nothing for the appellate court to review
C. holding that no issue is preserved for appellate review if the objecting party accepts the judges ruling and does not contemporaneously make an additional objection to sufficiency of the curative charge or move for a mistrial
D. holding that when an objection is overruled failing to request curative instructions or a mistrial does not result in waiver
E. holding that when no objection was made to jury instruction evidence to support finding based on instruction should be assessed in light of the instruction given
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.