Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
sources on safety regarding the ventilation of an HC binder; review of Fuller’s MSDS; interviews with McCullock concerning her work area and the glue pot; background industrial experience with ventilation; and practical experience with fumes. Thus, his analysis went far beyond that of a layman. Woolley had both the practical experience and necessary academic training to testify whether McCullock was in the breathing zone of the glue fumes. The district court therefore did not err, let alone manifestly err, by admitting Woolley’s expert testimony. B. Dr. Fagelson As to Dr. Fagelson, Fuller cites Christophersen v. Allied-Signal Corp., 939 F.2d 1106, 1113 (5th Cir.1991), cert. denied, 503 U.S. 912, 112 S.Ct. 1280, 117 L.Ed.2d 506 (1992), for the proposition that hol 5 (9th Cir.1994) , cert. denied, — U.S. -, 115 S.Ct. 734, 130
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that in reviewing the district courts decision concerning expert testimony we must first determine whether the district court properly followed the framework set forth in daubert
B. holding that a doctor was qualified under daubert to give an expert opinion on standard of medical care based on thirty years of experience as a practicing boardcertified cardiologist and his review of the medical records
C. holding that the district court properly admitted expert testimony under daubert that was based on inter alia the doctors clinical experience and review of the medical records
D. holding the district court properly admitted expert testimony on defendants active gang membership
E. holding that a request for funds for expert testimony must show inter alia that the testimony is crucial and is subject to varying expert opinions
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.