Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
information to the government in 2007, Koerber did not file his protective-order motion until February 2010, nearly nine months after the grand jury’s indictment. In addition, Koerber did not file his motion to suppress statements from the February 2009 interviews until April 2012. Moreover, Koerber did not file a motion to dismiss for an STA violation until April 2014-nearly five years after the grand jury returned its initial indictment. At the same time, Koerber filed his motion before trial when it was clear that there was an STA violation in this case. See 18 U.S.C. § 3162(a)(2) (“Failure of the defendant to move for dismissal prior to trial ... shall constitute a waiver of the right to dismissal under this section.”); United States v. Lugo, 170 F.3d 996, 1001 (10th Cir.1999) . And Koerber did not simply acquiesce to
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that the defendant waived any argument on the issue by failing to oppose a motion to dismiss
B. holding that argument was not preserved where defendant did not file a pretrial motion to suppress and did not object or make a motion to exclude the evidence until his motion to dismiss at the close of all of the evidence
C. holding that the defendant waived the right to dismissal under  3162a2 when he did not file a motion to dismiss before trial
D. holding that the trial court did not violate due process in considering the defendants motion to dismiss because the defendant had corrected its error in not serving its motion to dismiss on the plaintiff and because the plaintiff had received adequate time to consider and respond to the arguments made in the motion
E. holding that party sought affirmative relief by filing motion to dismiss and violated dueorderofhearing requirement by having motion to dismiss and motion to reconsider dismissal heard before special appearance
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.