Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
conspirators or participated in every stage of the conspiracy ....” Alred, 144 F.3d at 1415. Thus, the dispositive question is not whether Brown and Hall dealt with each other, but whether each of them participated in the overall conspiracy. We are persuaded that the evidence is sufficient to demonstrate to a rational trier of fact beyond a reasonable doubt that Hall and Brown were participants in a conspiracy that furthered a common scheme to supply large quantities of drugs in a haven to meet the demand of their customers. C Brown asserts that “there was insufficient evidence that [he] possessed, much , whereas Brown’s convictions began in 1991, only six years prior to the beginning of the conspiracy charged at trial. See United States v. Matthews, 431 F.3d 1296, 1312 (11th Cir.2005) ; United States v. Lampley, 68 F.3d 1296, 1300
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that collateral crime that occurred twelve years prior to charged offense not too remote in time
B. holding that prior drug convictions that were four ten and eleven years old were not so remote from the charged drug offenses as to render them inadmissible
C. holding that a six year span between the prior offense and the charged conduct did not render the previous conviction too remote to be relevant to the defendants intent in the case then at bar
D. holding that prior distribution and possession convictions that were eight and ten years before the charged conduct occurred were not too remote
E. holding that eight years between prior convictions and the beginning of the charged conspiracy was not too remote
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.