Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
between the two cannot be clearly erroneous.” United States v. Plancarte-Vazquez, 450 F.3d 848, 854 (8th Cir.2006). Although, after reviewing the sentencing transcript, I find the district court’s view of Clark’s testimony, both on direct examination and on cross, to be a real stretch, I cannot say it is clearly impermissible. Thus, I must determine whether Brown was a supervisor or manager based on the district court’s view of the evidence, rather than Brown’s view. Under our precedent, although it is a very close call, I cannot say the district court’s determination — Brown was a supervisor based on his use of Clark to drive him to drug transactions, in exchange for food, drink, shelter, and marijuana — was incorrect. See United States v. Maejia, 928 F.2d 810, 815 (8th Cir.1991) ; United States v. Alexander, 982 F.2d 262, 267
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that when lawenforcement officers have legally stopped the driver of a vehicle they may consistent with the fourth amendment order a driver out of the ear for any reason or for no reason
B. holding that hearsay evidence may be considered on summary judgment if the same evidence would be admissible in another form at trial
C. holding that even a driver not listed as an authorized driver for a rental car could nevertheless have an expectation of privacy if given permission to use the car by an authorized driver
D. holding detention lawful when police referred driver to secondary to check ownership of the vehicle after the driver admitted that the car did not belong to him and the registration revealed that the car was owned by another
E. holding that defendant may be considered to have a leadership role when he hired one driver and recruited another
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.