Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
believed that he was acting “in the usual course of his business or employment.” See United States v. Lewis, 53 F.3d 29, 32 (4th Cir.1995). To qualify under the employee or agent exception to registration under § 822, the person must be employed in the “legitimate distribution chain” of the controlled substance. See United States v. Pruitt, 487 F.2d 1241, 1244 (8th Cir.1973). Any possession or distribution outside of the legitimate distribution chain is unlawful. United States v. Vamos, 797 F.2d 1146, 1151-52 (2d Cir.1986). Thus, if the possession is not in the “usual course of the registrant’s lawful professional practice,” then it is not in the legitimate chain of possession and therefore not within the § 822(c) exception. See United States v. Hill, 589 F.2d 1344, 1350 (8th Cir.1979) . Here, Smith was directed by his employer to
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding  1227a2bi limits the meaning of controlled substance for removal purposes to the substances controlled under  802
B. holding that defendants ability to pay may be considered in assessing penalty under controlled substances act
C. holding that a company registered with the new york department of state is found for purposes of rule b
D. holding that both the unlawful possession and unlawful use prongs were met and noting that the firearm transferred to the individual was not registered making the individuals possession of it necessarily unlawful
E. holding that mere fact that defendant was employee of company registered to possess and distribute controlled substances does not make otherwise unlawful conduct lawful
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.