Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
six or seven months, they purchased approximately one-half of a kilogram of cocaine to split; (2) Bolware and Chisolm also purchased cocaine powder from an individual named “B” on 20 to 40 different occasions, and Bolware estimated that they received over 50 kilograms of cocaine from “B”; and (3) McCloud testified that on approximately 20 occasions from January through June 2006, he would buy 4 or 5 crack cocaine “cookies,” which were approximately 21 to 23 grams each, from Chisolm and Bolware. This evidence was sufficient for a reasonable jury to find beyond a reasonable doubt that Chisolm conspired to distribute and possess with intent to distribute more than 50 grams of cocaine base between April 17, 2006, and June 3, 2008. See Hernandez, 433 F.3d at 1333; Thompson, 422 F.3d at 1292 . Because the evidence was sufficient for a
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that circumstantial evidence alone is sufficient to support a cocaine conspiracy conviction
B. holding that simple possession of cocaine is not lesser included offense of conspiracy to possess cocaine with intent to distribute
C. holding similar evidence sufficient to sustain a jury verdict of possession with intent to distribute cocaine
D. recognizing the existence of the special relationship
E. holding that sufficient evidence supported conspiracy because the government established the existence of a continuing relationship between mr stratton and ms thompson in which mr stratton would supply ms thompson cocaine the bulk of which she would distribute to customers
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.