Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
of his codefendants, we conclude that Pedraza’s sufficiency challenge is also without merit. Gonzalez identified Pedraza as one of the men who converged at Shorty Pedraza’s home and helped unload the marijuana from Garcia’s trailer. Gonzalez also testified that Pedraza was part owner of the truck used during the first conspiracy and that Pedraza and Garcia argued on one occasion when Pedraza wanted Garcia to finish paying Pedraza for the truck. Thus, Gonzalez’s testimony, if believed, established more than Pedraza’s mere presence at the scene of conspiratorial activity. Pedraza’s complaint that the jury could not have rationally convicted him and at the same'time acquitted Shorty Pedraza is without merit. See United States v. Zuniga-Salinas, 952 F.2d 876, 877 (5th Cir.1992) (en banc) . Because a rational jury could have found that
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that a party waived its objection to the jurys verdict by not objecting to an alleged inconsistency prior to the dismissal of the jury
B. holding that if the alleged misrepresentations are material a plaintiff is entitled to recovery whether or not the misrepresentations caused the alleged damage
C. holding that a verdict convicting one alleged conspirator can stand even if the jury acquits the sole alleged eoconspirator
D. holding that the lack of evidence of the alleged principals control over the alleged agent precludes the finding of an agency relationship
E. holding that the verdict must be sustained if there is any competent evidence to support the verdict
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.