With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". Judge.” See Daniels v. Yancey, 175 S.W.3d 889, 892 (Tex.App.-Texarkana 2005, no pet.) (“[0]ne party may not use another party’s objection to preserve an error where the record does not reflect a timely expression of an intent to adopt the objection.”). In construing the nature of SOS Alliance’s objection, we consider only the objection actually made to the trial court. See Wohlfahrt v. Holloway, 172 S.W.3d 630, 639-40 (Tex.App.Houston [14th Dist.] 2005, pet. denied) (“To have preserved error, a party’s argument on appeal must comport with its argument in the trial court.”). Moreover, SOS Alliance waived its statutory objection to the assignment of Judge Bender by not asserting the claimed error on any basis by a point on appeal. See Buckholts Indep. Sch. Dist., 632 S.W.2d at 148-49 (<HOLDING>). On its direct appeal of the 2004 judgment,

A: holding that a defendant waived a sentencing issue by failing to object in district court
B: holding that statutory grounds for recusal can be waived both by failing to object and by failing to assert error on appeal
C: holding that government waived right to challenge alleged error of district court in failing to impose statutory minimum sentence under  841b1b by failing to object to sentence announced by district court
D: holding the defendant waived any claim of error by both failing to object at trial and affirmatively agreeing to a limited closure
B.