Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant knowingly and intentionally became a member of the single conspiracy alleged in the indictment as opposed to some other conspiracy. Proof that the defendant was only a member of some other conspiracy is not enough to convict. However, proof that a defendant was a member of some other conspiracy would not prevent you from returning a guilty verdict if the government also proved that the defendant was also a member of the conspiracy charged in the indictment. (J.A. at 3839, 3849.) The first portion of this instruction is a correct statement of law. A jury need not find that a defendant conspired with all the alleged co-conspirators in order to convict a defendant of conspiracy. See United States v. Sandy, 605 F.2d 210, 217 (6th Cir.1979) ; see also United States v. Thomas, 348 F.3d
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that a prior acquittal does not preclude the admission of evidence of a defendants other alleged crimes in a prosecution for the bank robbery on the basis of collateral estoppel principles because    the prior acquittal did not determine an ultimate issue in the present case
B. holding that the conspiracy theory of personal jurisdiction requires that the outofstate coconspirator was or should have been aware of the acts performed in the forum state in furtherance of the conspiracy
C. holding testimony admissible as showing context of relationship with coconspirator prior to conspiracy
D. holding that an acquittal of sole coconspirator does not re quire reversal of defendants conviction
E. holding the acquittal of several jointly tried codefendants in a conspiracy case was not grounds for reversing the conviction of a codefendant and alleged coconspirator
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.