Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
an enterprise which was engaged in racketeering activity. Government Brief at 27. According to the Government: Although many of the substantive offenses in the [Redacted Superseding] Indictment charge only some of the [Defendants, all of those counts are charged as schemes in connection with the RICO conspiracy. Thus, although each defendant may have had a different role in the RICO conspiracy, all defendants were centrally involved in the conspiracy. Id. at 27-28; see United States v. Lane, 474 U.S. 438, 447, 106 S.Ct. 725, 731, 88 L.Ed.2d 814 (1986) (explaining that joinder of multiple defendants in a single trial is proper under Rule 8 when an indictment “charge[s] all the defendants with one overall count of conspiracy”); United States v. Price, 13 F.3d 711, 719 (3d Cir.1994) , cert. denied, — U.S. -, 115 S.Ct. 1372, 131
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that the district court made sufficient factual findings and adequately determined the scope of defendants participation in a conspiracy under  1b13 even though the district court did not expressly determine the scope of the defendants participation
B. holding that a master conspiracy with subschemes to sell speed was a single conspiracy
C. holding that there was a sufficient basis for joinder of seven defendants in a single trial where all the defendants were charged with participation in a single overarching drug conspiracy
D. holding that evidence of defendants recruitment of single drug courier was sufficient to support section 3b11c enhancement
E. holding that evidence tending to show knowing participation in the conspiracy is sufficient to sustain conspiracy conviction
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.