Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
understanding of the English language and the complexity of the proceedings, issues, and testimony. United States v. Khehra, 396 F.3d 1027, 1030 (8th Cir.2005). Applying those factors, the court in Khehra did not find error in the trial court’s refusal to appoint an interpreter for a defendant whose native language was a Punjabi dialect, but who communicated in English to his customers and vendors on a regular basis, failed to assert any problem with communication, informed his counsel that he did not need an interpreter, had evidence presented against him at trial of him communicating in English while committing the alleged crime, and did not have a complex trial. Id. Similarly, in United States v. Osuna, 3 Fed.Appx. 739, 740-41 (10th Cir.2001), cert. de 2d 505, 508-09 (1989) , rev. denied, superseded on other grounds by
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that the trial court was under no obligation to appoint an interpreter where defendant did not request one and spoke english reasonably well
B. holding that it was not error for a trial court to have failed to provide sua sponte a competent interpreter where counsel did not request one prior to trial and defendant spoke and understood english well enough to conversantly discuss the crime with a police officer and had no trouble answering questions at the sentencing hearing
C. holding that a defendant forfeited his right to counsel when he verbally abused and refused to communicate with a succession of attorneys
D. holding that trial court need not appoint an interpreter where counsel indicated that he could communicate with defendant and that defendant could understand questions and answers
E. holding that it was improper when prosecutor posed questions to defense counsel that could have been read as posed only to the defendant and whose answers could only have been provided by the defendant
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.