Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
marginal value to Perry of his participation in the instant case; perhaps as in Fusco, it was offered to undermine any insinuation that Perry had received funds for his participation in this case alone; or finally, perhaps the prosecution wanted to counter defense counsel’s specific insinuation that Perry would benefit merely by accusing people. We simply do not know. Given these possibilities, the ambiguity in the case law, and the context of the present testimony, we cannot say that admission of the evidence constituted plain error. We conclude by emphasizing that, to satisfy the plain error standard, Smith must show that the alleged error “affected] substantial rights,” that is, “affected the outcome of the district court proceedings.” Olano, 507 U.S. at 734, 113 S.Ct. 1770 . Moreover, “‘[t]he plain error exception to
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that the substantial rights inquiry of federal rule of criminal procedure 52b mirrors rule 52as harmless error inquiry except that the burden in the former falls on the defendant to show prejudice
B. holding that the relevant time of inquiry is the date of the filing of the complaint
C. holding that a district court cannot invoke its inherent authority to circumvent the harmlesserror inquiry required by rule 52a of the federal rules of criminal procedure
D. holding that the affecting substantial rights language of rule 52b means that the error must have been prejudicial it must have affected the outcome of the district court proceedings
E. holding that burden is on government to show that error in failure to provide notice is harmless
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.