Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
at oral argument, however, the Supreme Court’s recent decision in Abbott v. United States forecloses that argument, and Smith’s claim fails. * * * We AFFIRM. * Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4. 1 . 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), (b)(l)(B)(iii). 2 . 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1), 924(a)(2). 3 .18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A). 4 . See Fifth Cir.Crim. Pattern Jury Instr. (2001) § 1.30. 5 . See Franks v. Delaware, 438 U.S. 154, 171, 98 S.Ct. 2674, 57 L.Ed.2d 667 (1978). 6 . See United States v. Seale, 600 F.3d 473, 487 (5th Cir.), cert denied,-U.S.-, 131 S.Ct. 163, 178 L.Ed.2d 97 (2010); see also United States v. Mejia, 844 F.2d 209, 214 (5th Cir. 1988) . 7 . See United States v. Salinas, 480 F.3d
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that a violation of the hearsay rule was harmless
B. holding that an objection on hearsay grounds did not preserve for appeal an exception to the hearsay rule that was not specifically raised
C. holding florida drivers handbook hearsay and not within any recognized exception to hearsay rule
D. holding that general objection did not preserve error on appeal
E. holding that hearsay objection does not preserve a confrontation clause challenge
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.