Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
recordings made by a participant to the conversation who was “acting under color of law.” 18 U.S.C. § 2511(2)(c). Second, § 2511(2)(d) allows the use of recordings made by participants in a conversation unless that party had a “criminal or tortious” purpose in making the recording. 18 U.S.C. § 2511(2)(d). Because we find that Whitacre acted under color of law, we do not need to reach the second possibility. The government asserts that Whitacre was acting as a cooperating witness, and therefore under color of law, from November 1992 through the end of the conspiracy. See Obron Atlantic Corp. v. Barr, 990 F.2d 861, 864 (6th Cir.1993) (allowing use of tape recordings made by corporate executive in price-fixing investigation); United States v. Haimowitz, 725 F.2d 1561, 1582 (11th Cir.1984) ; United States v. Horton, 601 F.2d 319, 322
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that informant acted under color of law when fbi supervised recording
B. holding that cooperating witness under direction of fbi was acting under color of law
C. holding that a federal drug informant acting under the partial direction of the fbi and for pay was not a federal employee under the ftca
D. holding private actors are not acting under the color of state law for the purposes of section 1983 liability
E. holding intentional gender discrimination in public employment by persons acting under color of state law violates the equal protection clause of the fourteenth amendment and is actionable under section 1983
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.