Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
his understanding of the charges and proceedings against him. At the hearing, the District Court stated that it had reviewed “in detail” a report prepared by a Bureau of Prisons (“BOP”) psychologist that concluded, among other things, that (1) Fox possessed a rational and factual understanding of the proceedings against him; (2) Fox had a capacity to assist legal counsel in his defense; and (3) Fox could rationally make decisions regarding legal strategy. Relying on that report, as well as Fox’s own testimony, the District Court found that Fox was indeed “competent to stand trial.” Appellant’s App’x at 47-48. As the trier of fact, the District Court was well within its province to give weight to the BOP psychologist’s opinion, see United States v. Zhou, 428 F.3d 361, 380 (2d Cir.2005) , and did not clearly err in relying as well on
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. recognizing that a court may rely on matters of which a court may take judicial notice
B. holding that it is only by looking at how similarly situated entities acted in a similar situation that a factfinder may determine what was commercially reasonable
C. holding that a court evaluating competency may reasonably rely on the expertise of a forensic psychologist associated with the bop who is presumably familiar with patients similarly situated
D. holding on the particular facts before the court that parol evidence of a dividend declaration was inadmissible because of its potential to result in disparate rights between similarly situated stockholders
E. holding that the state as well as the defendant has a right to rely on compliance with rule 16
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.