Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
v. Burgos, 94 F.3d 849, 862 (4th Cir.1996)(en banc) (citation omitted). A reviewing court does not assess the credibility of witnesses, but rather assumes “that the jury resolved all contradictions in testimony in favor of the Government.” Green, 599 F.3d at 367 (quoting United States v. United Med. & Surgical Supply Corp., 989 F.2d 1390, 1402 (4th Cir.1993)). 1. As a preliminary matter, we reject the notion that Darby’s conviction should be vacated on the conspiracy charge merely because his co-conspirator Melvin Wright was acquitted on the same charge. It is well established that an acquittal of the appellant’s alleged co-conspirator does not necessitate that the appellant’s conviction be vacated. See United States v. Powell, 469 U.S. 57, 65, 105 S.Ct. 471, 83 L.Ed.2d 461 (1984); United States v. Collins, 412 F.3d 515,
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that a defendant cannot challenge his conviction merely because it is inconsistent with jurys verdict of acquittal on another count
B. holding that a criminal defendant convicted by a jury on one count cannot attack that conviction because it was inconsistent with the jurys verdict of acquittal on another count citations omitted
C. holding that conviction for seconddegree murder operates as implied acquittal on firstdegree murder count
D. holding that the jurys guilty verdict for the offense of operating a vehicle while intoxicated as a class a misdemeanor was not wholly inconsistent with its acquittal of the defendant on the charge of public intoxication
E. holding that under aspinwall when the trial court submits to the jury a good count  one that is supported by the evidence  and a bad count  one that is not supported by the evidence  and the jury returns a general verdict this court cannot presume that the verdict was returned on the good count in such a case a judgment entered upon the verdict must be reversed
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.