Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
prior conduct, is whether the legislative aim was to punish that individual for past activity, or whether the restriction of the individual comes about as a relevant incident to a regulation of a present situation, such as the proper qualifications for a profession____ The proof is overwhelming that New York sought not to punish ex-felons, but to devise what was felt to be a much-needed scheme of regulation of the waterfront, and for the effectuation of that scheme it became important whether individuals had previously been convicted of a felony. 363 U.S. at 160, 80 S.Ct. at 1155. As defendants point out, other statutes that imposed restrictions on convicted felons after the fact also have survived ex post facto challenges. See, e.g., Bae v. Shalala, 44 F.3d 489, 493-96 (7th Cir.1995) ; United States v. Huss, 7 F.3d 1444, 1447-48
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding a fiveyear old drug conviction is probative of a defendants state of mind in a drug conspiracy case
B. holding prior drug deals admissible to prove knowledge of the drug trade
C. holding that provisions of generic drug enforcement act debarring convicted felons from participating in generic drug industry are remedial and not punitive
D. holding a branded drug and its generic version to be a plausible relevant market
E. holding that when a district court determines drug quantity for the purpose of sentencing a defendant convicted of participating in a drugtrafficking conspiracy the court is required to make an individualized finding as to drug amounts attributable to or foreseeable by that defendant
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.