Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
opinions.... ” We have no trouble concluding that Rule 703 encompasses hearsay statements in a context such as the instant one, where the government expert specifically testified that his opinion was based on his experience and expertise, in conjunction with the information he received from a DEA intelligence agent and Bermudan authorities, and that such sources of information were regularly relied upon in valuating narcotics. See also 2A Charles Alan Wright & Arthur R. Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure § 455 (3d ed. 2000) (stating that “expert testimony, based in part upon reports of others that are not in evidence but of a sort the expert customarily relies upon in the practice of his profession, are [sic] admissible”); cf. United States v. Floyd, 281 F.3d 1346 (11th Cir.2002) . Further, even before the enactment of Federal
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding where defense counsel argued that the prosecution had not presented the testimony of a law enforcement agent because it would have been favorable to the accused the prosecutor properly argued in rebuttal that clark could have called the agent as a witness on his own
B. holding that both agent and principal will be liable when the agent acts within the scope of his employment but for his own purposes
C. holding that the employer was not the insurers agent
D. holding that expert testimony by an atf agent based partly on his own analysis but verified by consultation with an atf technical specialist was properly admitted under rule 703 where the agent testified that the consultation was of the kind regularlyrelied upon by experts in his field
E. holding that party was an agent under the plain terms of his contracts
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.