Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
respect of NRDC’s challenge to the 2009-10 specifications. The Fifth Amended Complaint challenged specifications for the first time in this case as to the 2009-10 specifications and quotas, rather than in a separate action as NRDC had done before without exception. Indeed, because NRDC did not file a separate action to challenge the 2009-10 specifications, the Fifth Amended Complaint challenged those specifications for the first time ever, in this case or any other. The magistrate judge therefore had not engaged — much less substantially engaged — the 2009-10 specifications in any prior proceeding in this case. At the time WCSPA moved to intervene, this case was not “at issue;” NMFS had not even filed a responsive pleading to the Fifth Amended Complaint. See LULAC, 131 F.3d at 1303 . Thus, this case entered a new stage with the
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that the district courts finding of no discrimination was not clearly erroneous because the finding was supported by the record
B. holding party may raise jurisdictional issue at any stage of proceedings
C. holding that the filing of a motion for a new trial is a critical stage of the prosecution and that an indigent defendant is constitutionally entitled to the assistance of counsel at that stage
D. holding the stage of the proceedings supported a finding of untimeliness of the proposed intervention where the defendant had filed an answer
E. holding that sentencing is a critical stage of criminal proceedings and the offer of counsel must be renewed at each critical stage where the defendant appears without counsel
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.