Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
population. Cf. Shryock, 342 F.3d at 986 (“[T]he district court need not define common terms that are readily understandable to the jury.”). Even accepting the debatable proposition that “ad hoc” is beyond the understanding of the average juror, we conclude that the jury would have been able to understand what type of structure a RICO enterprise must have (i.e., one that provides “a mechanism for controlling and directing the affairs of the entity on an on-going continuous basis”) from the remainder of the instruction. Moreover, we have previously held that a district court is not required to define terms that would normally be beyond the general knowledge of jurors if the terms have been covered extensively during the trial. United States v. Sarno, 73 F.3d 1470, 1486 (9th Cir.1995) . In this case, the structure of the alleged
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that the district courts failure to instruct the jury on quantity was harmless in part because the testimony regarding quantity was extensive detailed and uncontroverted
B. recognizing that the term expense may be used to define disbursements even though the term is used in accrual accounting
C. holding that an issue was not properly before the court on appeal because the trial court did not have the opportunity to make any findings of fact regarding it
D. holding that a district court properly denied the defendants request for a mistrial following a witness statement that the defendant had  an extensive criminal record  because the remark was isolated and the district court gave an immediate curative instruction
E. holding that the district court was not required to define pro forma because of extensive discussions regarding the term at trial
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.