Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
[the federal controlled substance statute], which requires nothing more specific than an intent to distribute a controlled substance.”); United States v. Carranza, 289 F.3d 634, 644 (9th Cir.2002) (“[A] defendant can be convicted [of possessing a controlled substance] if he believes he has some controlled substance in his possession.”) (quotation omitted); United States v. Barbosa, 271 F.3d 438, 458 (3d Cir.2001) (“[I]t is well settled that the Government must show that the defendant knew that the substance in which he trafficked was a controlled substance.”); United States v. Carrera, 259 F.3d 818, 830 (7th Cir.2001) (“The government need only prove that the defendant was aware that some controlled substance was involved.”); United States v. Sheppard, 219 F.3d 766, 769 (8th Cir.2000)  (quotation omitted); United States v.
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that the government need not prove that the defendant actually knew the exact nature of the substance to establish mens rea knowledge of drugs illegality is sufficient
B. holding that mens rea required for possession of a controlled substance is knowledge that defendant possessed a controlled substance
C. holding that a mens rea of unlawfully in the indictment was sufficient because the indictment referenced the applicable statute which required a reckless mens rea
D. holding that possession of a controlled substance is a crime only if the defendant knowingly possesses the substance and has knowledge of the nature of that substance
E. holding that it was not necessary for the state to prove that the defendant knew the precise nature of the controlled substance he was convicted of delivering when evidence established that he knew it was a controlled substance
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.