Given the task definition and input, reply with output. In this task, you will be shown a prompt from a judicial decision and multiple holding statements derived from citations following text in a legal decision.  Holdings represent the governing legal rule when the law is applied to a particular set of facts. There are five answer choices for each citing text. The correct answer is the holding statement that corresponds to the citing text. The four incorrect answers are other holding statements. You should find the correct option. There is a <HOLDING> token in the position of the citing text prompt where the holding statement was extracted.

that the agents found items relating to the manufacture of methamphetamine both inside and outside of defendant’s residence. To the extent that defendant simply argues that there is a lack of evidence showing any connection between his possession of the firearms and his offenses, defendant both disregards the strong record evidence demonstrating otherwise and misplaces the burden of proof under § 501.2(a) upon the government. Additionally, to the extent that defendant, for the first time, asserts in his appellate brief that his possession of the firearms was for his personal protection, rather than for any purpose connected with his offenses, such an alternative explanation comes too late. See Fed. R.App. P. 10(a); cf. United States v. Butler, 207 F.3d 839, 849-50 (6th Cir.2000) (<HOLDING>). In sum, because defendant did not demonstrate 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that because the appellant did not present to the administrative agency the argument it raised before this court the issue was not preserved and holding that even if preserved the argument failed (B) holding that an argument was barred where the movant could have but did not raise its argument before the district court ruled in the original motion (C) holding that a party waives an argument if the party fails to elaborate or provide any citation of authority in support of the argument (D) holding that this courts consideration of a new argument in support of a sentencing objection raised before the district court was proper where the additional argument entailed a question of pure law and thus did not deprive any party of the opportunity to offer relevant evidence (E) holding argument not waived for failure to object where party previously raised argument and district court considered and rejected it

(D)