Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
required to review the substance of the constitutional challenge to the (e)(9) aggravating circumstance which Fisher now pursues and, thus, the review was not independent of federal law. We disagree. In Mu’min v. Pruett, 125 F.3d 192 (4th Cir.1997), we rejected a similar claim that the Virginia Supreme Court implicitly considered and rejected a habeas applicant’s constitutional claims during its mandatory review of the applicant’s death sentence because the mandatory review procedures only required the Virginia Supreme Court to determine “whether the imposition of the death penalty was influenced by improper considerations,” and not to “examine the record for constitutional errors not specified on appeal.” Id. at 197; see Kornahrens v. Evatt, 66 F.3d 1350, 1362-63 (4th Cir.1995) ; see also Bennett v. Angelone, 92 F.3d 1336,
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding a contemporaneous objection is required to preserve an issue for appellate review
B. holding that south carolinas prior practice of in favorem vitae review did not preserve otherwise defaulted claims
C. holding that dismissal of claim attacking sufficiency of a plea allocution by defendants failure to preserve the issue otherwise available on direct appeal for such review
D. holding that general objection did not preserve error on appeal
E. holding that litigant must object at trial to preserve error for review
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.