Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
loss amounts between herself and Walsh constitute prosecutorial misconduct because one of the stipulations must be “inaccurate.” Cf. United States Attorneys’ Manual § 9-16.300 (prohibiting government attorneys from stipulating to a fact that is not accurate). The argument initially fails to recognize that two different loss amounts, for two different defendants, can both be accurate because the different loss amounts reflect the different loss for which each defendant was responsible. Furthermore, the government’s different loss calculations cannot be prosecutorial misconduct — let alone misconduct that rises to plain error — because the government has no obligation to stipulate to identical loss amounts with co-conspirators. United States v. Pierce, 409 F.3d 228, 233-34 (4th Cir.2005) . Our circuit has approved a government
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that the fair and adequate representation requirement was not satisfied because of litigation between plaintiff and defendant the antagonism between the parties and the lack of support plaintiff garnered in its claim
B. recognizing differing elements and standard of proof between medical malpractice and fraud
C. holding loss stipulation of between 70000 and 120000 with one defendant and between 120000 and 200000 with coconspirator permissible in a mail fraud case
D. holding that the first element of mail fraud  knowing participation in a scheme to defraud  can extend beyond the specific mailing and that the loss calculation for a mail fraud conviction may include any loss from the fraudulent scheme that the mailing furthered
E. holding that evidence may be introduced to provide necessary background information to show an ongoing relationship between the defendant and a coconspirator and to help the jury understand the coconspirators role in the scheme
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.