Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
circumstances of Strada’s murder. Id. at 1312 (citations omitted). The robberies clarified the relationship between Mandacina, McGuire and Earlywine. The robberies brought both McGuire and Earlywine to Kansas City on numerous occasions to obtain firearms through the Mandarinas and to launder money. Most importantly, the robberies explained why McGuire would entrust Earlywine with knowledge of the Strada murder and why Mandacina would discuss a contract murder with McGuire, in Early-wine’s presence, without fearing that he would be reported to the authorities immediately. In light of the above, the evidence was more probative than prejudicial. The trial court need not issue a prior crimes limiting instruction sua sponte. See United States v. Williams, 994 F.2d 1287, 1290 (8th Cir.1993) . We see no reason to treat the admission of
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that failure to give a limiting instruction for 404b evidence is not plain error
B. holding that in admitting evidence the failure of the trial court to give a limiting instruction sua sponte is not reversible error
C. holding that the defendant had waived any challenge to the district courts failure to give a limiting instruction addressing rule 404b evidence by failing to request one at trial or raise the issue on appeal
D. holding that the district court did not commit plain error in admitting physical evidence of the defendants prior drug arrest in addition to the fact of the arrest itself when the evidence was relevant under rule 404b and the district court gave a limiting instruction
E. holding that district courts incomplete 404b limiting instruction did not warrant reversal because district court told defense counsel what limiting instruction it would give and defense counsel did not object or request a more specific instruction
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.