Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
each element of this offense. Witness testimony and wire-transfer receipts confirm that the defendant made wire transfers of $93,650 in drug proceeds. Further, the defendant’s claim of innocence is incredible. Over a span of three years Ronald Jenkins received thousands of dollars in cash from Hart, Smith, House, and Coleman, all young men ranging in age from 15 to 19. He also was aware that his brother lived a lavish lifestyle—he owned multiple homes, limousines, a Rolls Royce—yet had no visible source of income. On at least one occasion, the defendant had over $100,000 in cash stored in a garbage bag in his home. A jury certainly could have concluded from this evidence that the defendant was aware that the money in question had resulted from drug activity. Lopez, 42 F.3d 463, 467 . III. Next, the defendant argues that his
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that because evidence was sufficient to support defendants  1962c convictions and jury could infer from evidence that defendants each manifested an agreement to participate in enterprises affairs evidence was sufficient to support defendants  1962d convictions for rico conspiracy
B. recognizing that jury may infer from the evidence that defendants money came from drug sales
C. recognizing that a jury is permitted to infer an intent to deceive from circumstantial evidence
D. recognizing that while it is more difficult to show actual fear without a defendants testimony a jury can infer intent from the circumstantial evidence
E. holding that the factfinder may infer discrimination from the falsity of the employers explanation
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.