Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
that the Second District may have considered rule 3.170(g)(2)(A) jurisdictional. Rule 3.170(g)(2)(A) specifically states: (2) Unless otherwise stated at the time the plea is entered: (A) The state may move to vacate a pleá and sentence within 60 days of the defendant’s noncompliance with the specific terms of a plea agreement. The Fifth District held that rule 3.170(g)(2)(A) is not jurisdictional because it permits the time for filing to be altered. A jurisdictional rule cannot be altered by the court or by agreement of the parties. See, e.g., Cunningham v. Standard Guar. Ins. Co., 630 So.2d 179, 181 (Fla.1994) (“We acknowledge that the parties cannot stipulate to jurisdiction over the subject matter where none exists.... ”); Harrell v. State, 721 So.2d 1185, 1187 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998) . Because this particular provision allows the
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that lack of appellate jurisdiction is fundamental error
B. holding that a lack of jurisdiction is a category one claim that cannot be waived or forfeited
C. holding that lack of consent may be established by adequate circumstantial evidence
D. holding that lack of justiciable interest resulted in lack of standing to pursue claim and that lack of standing deprived the trial court of jurisdiction to act
E. holding that lack of jurisdiction cannot be cured by consent
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.