Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
pleas court and the Superior Court, where she argued primarily that DiMarco, Troxel, and Section 324A were controlling. Appellee also did not assert that she was denied an adequate procedure in which to advance evidence or argument on the policy matters at the heart of the duty decision. In such circumstances, to the extent that Appellee attempts to do so at the present stage of the appellate litigation, those arguments are unpreserved. See In re J.M., 556 Pa. 63, 83 n. 15, 726 A.2d 1041, 1051 n. 15 (1999) (finding waiver of an issue, on the part of one who became an appellee in the Supreme Court, that was not raised before the trial court or the Superior Court where that party was the appellant); accord Commonwealth v. McMullen, 599 Pa. 435, 443 n. 2, 961 A.2d 842, 846 n. 2 (2008) . In any event, as a consequence of Appellee’s
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that a litigant did not waive a claim because it was the appellee in the intermediate appellate court  emphasis added
B. holding that an application is  pending from the time it is first filed  emphasis added
C. holding that a federal court has jurisdiction over the question of whether truck was engaged in interstate commerce at the time of the accident emphasis added
D. holding that the statute incorporated all the rights and obligations of the contract emphasis added
E. holding that the plain meaning of the statutory language a claim refutes the defendants argument that plaintiff must allege that the anticompetitive effect gives rise to his claim emphasis added
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.