Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
116, line 1] she states, ‘[Baker] may be the sole owner but it is still my house.’ ” Doc. 31 at 18. There are at two obvious problems with this contention. First, the cited page 116 of Griffin’s May 3, 2012 Examination Under Oath contains no such statement, and there are no similar statements in any of the bordering pages. The eourt confesses that it did not read the entire 294 pages of the examination to ascertain whether it could perhaps find the quoted language or any passage remotely similar to it because “judges are not like pigs, hunting for truffles buried in briefs” or, in this case, in a voluminous evidentiary record. Smith v. Lamz, 321 F.3d 680, 683 (7th Cir.2003) (internal quotation marks omitted). See also United States v. Adkinson, 135 F.3d 1363, 1378-1380 (11th Cir.1998); Dickson v. Amoco Performance Prod., Inc., 845
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that it is unfair to the district court to other litigants and to the movant to impose a duty on the district court to search and sift the factual record for the benefit of the defaulting party
B. holding that it is not the courts duty to sift through the record for evidence that supports a partys contentions
C. holding that the appeals court may affirm the ruling of the district court on any basis which the record supports
D. holding that an appellate court is not required to search the appellate record with no guidance from the briefing party to determine if the record supports the partys argument
E. holding it is proper to defer to the family court even if conflicting evidence is presented on appeal as long as ample evidence in the record supports the family courts findings and conclusions
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.