Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
is determined by comparing the defendant’s state of mind in committing the extrinsic and charged acts. United States v. Zapata, 139 F.3d 1355, 1358 (11th Cir.1998) (per curiam). Although the age of a prior offense may depreciate its probity, we have refrained from adopting a bright-line rule regarding temporal proximity, because remoteness analyses are so fact-specific “that a generally applicable litmus test would be of dubious value.” Matthews, 431 F.3d at 1311 (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). An appellant bears a heavy burden in establishing an abuse of the judge’s “broad discretion” in determining if a prior offense is too old to be probative. Id. (citation and internal quotation marks omitted); see also United States v. Lampley, 68 F.3d 1296, 1300 (11th Cir.1995) . A district judge’s limiting instruction can
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that district court did not err in determining that cocaine base was crack cocaine based on chemical analysis identifying cocaine base together with competent lay testimony bridging the evidentiary gap between cocaine base and crack cocaine and refusing to require showing of smokeability ie water solubility or melting point for purposes of establishing crack cocaine under the guidelines since smokeability distinguishes cocaine base from powder cocaine not from crack
B. holding that insufficient evidence supported the defendants conviction for possession of cocaine when officers executed a warrant on a small oneroom apartment and found large quantities of crackcocaine in plain view although the defendant supplied police with a false name when they questioned him at the apartment there was no evidence that the defendant had drugs on his person or that he had ever used cocaine
C. holding that prior convictions for possession of cocaine and marijuana are admissible to impeach defendant
D. holding that a reasonable jury could have concluded based on repeated references to the substance as cocaine and testimony from witnesses who had used the substances which they believed to be cocaine that substance was cocaine
E. holding in a prosecution for a large cocaine deal the district judge did not abuse his discretion when he admitted evidence that the defendant had participated in small marijuana deals approximately 15 years before the charged cocaine offenses
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.