Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
(Id. at 32). He has no affiliations with professional organizations dealing with' GPS systems. (Id. at 34). Prior to this case, he has never served or been asked to serve as an expert in the field. (Id.) Accordingly, we find that Williams does not have the specialized knowledge required of an expert witness. B. Does the matter require scientific, technical or specialized knowledge to be understood? The second factor is whether the subject matter that the proposed expert will testify to requires scientific, technical or specialized knowledge. Here, the proposed expert is to testify about GPS coordinates and analysis. Under the caselaw, this subject matter does not require scientific, technical or specialized knowledge. United States v. Thompson, 393 Fed.Appx. 852, 858, 859 (3d Cir.2010) ; see also United States v. Espinal-Almeida,
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that a forensic accountant is an expert witness not a lay witness
B. holding that lay witness opinion as to guilt of defendant inadmissible
C. holding that the trial court properly allowed lay witness testimony concerning the operation of a gps device including authentication of the gpss data
D. holding that it is within the discretion of the trial judge to sustain the states objection where questions to a witness go to his understanding of the law concerning parole and call for the legal knowledge of a lay witness
E. holding that the admissibility of lay witness identification testimony turns on a number of factors
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.