Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
if fact’s existence was “more likely than not”). That finding was supported here by evidence of Hilson’s history of drug trafficking and his possession of the money at a time when he was known to be selling crack, as evidenced by his three recent sales to the confidential informant. It was further supported by evidence refuting Hilson’s suggestions that the monies derived from various legitimate sources, such as a student grant, a girlfriend’s tax refund, Hilson’s own bank accounts, or his one-week employment at Wendy’s. With the finding that the seized money constituted drug proceeds, Hilson does not—and cannot—seriously challenge the district court’s calculation that $10,366 would be the proceeds from the sale of 326.5 grams of crack. See United States v. Jones, 531 F.3d at 175 . The district court noted that the market
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that a state conviction is a drug trafficking offense because the trafficked drug is listed in a csa schedule
B. holding the district court did not clearly err in applying the enhancement where guns were found on the same premises from which the defendant trafficked drugs and were readily accessible to the defendant
C. recognizing that the district court may make drug quantity findings by a preponderance of the evidence to calculate an advisory guidelines sentence for a  841b1c offense
D. holding harmless any error in district courts drug quantity determination where undisputed quantity of drugs was enough to place defendant at the base offense level calculated by the district court
E. holding that where seized currency appears by a preponderance of the evidence to be the proceeds of narcotics trafficking a district court may consider the market price for the drugs in which the defendant trafficked in determining the drug quantity represented by that currency
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.