Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
v. United States, 899 F.2d 1495, 1501 (6th Cir.1990). Vaught based his motion to disqualify on the fact that John Hollins, Sr., husband of Vaught’s sister Carol, was a prominent attorney in the Nashville area, past president of the Nashville Bar Association, and a member of various other professional organizations. In United States v. Dandy, we held that a judge who was acquainted with a government witness did not err by denying a motion for recusal. 998 F.2d 1344, 1349 (6th Cir.1993). Similarly, there is no evidence in this case that the judge’s acquaintance with John Hollins, no matter how long-standing, extended beyond that level in any way that requires recusal (i.e., that their relationship was personal or fiduciary). See also United States v. Lovaglia, 954 F.2d 811 (2nd Cir.1992) ; United States v. Cole, 293 F.3d 153, 164 (4th
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that recusal was required based on newspaper report of interview with trial judge
B. holding recusal not required where case involved a family whom district judge had known personally seven or eight years earlier
C. recognizing the prejudice of an extension to a defendant who would be required to litigate events that occurred more than eight years earlier
D. holding that where appellant moved to recuse trial judge from deciding the motion for new trial the judge of the administrative district was required to designate a judge to hear the recusal motion
E. holding recusal not required
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.