Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
repaid. Burnett also purchased a large quantity of drugs from Jer-abek that turned out to be of very low quality. Burnett severed his relationship with Jerabek after this. Rutland sold drugs and collected debts for Burnett. Although there was no evidence any of the coconspirators specifically stated they were targeting Jerabek to damage his business, Burnett did say while planning the robbery that he wanted what Jerabek owed him. The district court could have inferred from this evidence that one purpose of the robbery was to collect drug debts Jerabek owed Burnett. Rutland’s sole response to this evidence is to argue the robbery was not a reasonably foreseeable consequence of the drug conspiracy. See Bourjaily v. United States, 483 U.S. 171, 188, 107 S.Ct. 2775, 97 L.Ed.2d 144 (1987) . He maintains that the drug conspirators
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that absolute immunity cannot attach to a quasijudicial officer if his actions are clearly and completely outside the scope of his jurisdiction
B. holding that a police officers rape of an arrestee was outside the scope of his employment
C. holding an individual who acts outside the scope of a conspiracy cannot bind his coconspirators
D. holding that once a defendant becomes associated with a conspiracy he is responsible for all of the acts of the conspiracy even those which occurred before or after his association with the conspiracy
E. holding that evidence was sufficient for jury to find that the defendant participated in the conspiracy even though he did not have a relationship with all of his fellow coconspirators
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.