Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
United States after deportation. The parties agree that the government’s failure to allege specific intent rendered the indictment defective under Pemillo-Fuentes. The government asserts, however, that Velasco-Medina waived his objection to the indictment’s sufficiency by failing to raise it before the district court. Velasco-Medina responds that the indictment’s defect deprived the district court of jurisdiction over the case ah initio, and thus requires that we overturn his conviction. We find neither argument availing. The government’s position that Ve-lasco-Medina waived any objection to the indictment’s sufficiency by failing to raise it in the district court has been repeatedly rejected in this Circuit. See, e.g., United States v. Godinez-Rabadan, 289 F.3d 630, 632 (9th Cir.2002) ; United States v. Geiger, 263 F.3d 1034, 1039
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that issues not raised in the trial court may not be raised later on appeal
B. holding that standing is a jurisdictional issue that can be raised for the first time on appeal
C. holding that issues not raised before the trial court cannot be raised on appeal
D. holding that a cruel and unusual punishment claim is not jurisdictional and therefore may not be raised for the first time on appeal
E. holding that indictments sufficiency is jurisdictional in nature and may be raised initially on appeal
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.