Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
after the fact, the conduct for which the defendant is accountable includes all conduct relevant to determining the offense level for the underlying offense that was known, or reasonably should have been known, by the defendant.” U.S.S.G. § 1B1.3, Application Note 10. Therefore, reading Application Note 10 in isolation would extend the reasonable-knowledge requirement to all conduct used to determine the sentence for the underlying offense, not only specific offense characteristics. Other circuits are split on how to resolve this apparent contradiction. Supporting Mrs. Lang’s position, the Fifth and Sixth Circuits allow a sentencing court to consider only those drug quantities of which the defendant knew or should have known. See United States v. Warters, 885 F.2d 1266 (5th Cir.1989) ; United States v. Shabazz, 263 F.3d 603 (6th
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that the hospital knew or should have known of the necessity to control based on a similar prior instance of inappropriate sexual conduct with a minor
B. holding that defendant who sets in motion series of events that he knew or should have known would cause others to deprive plaintiff of rights may be liable under  1983
C. holding that in certain circumstances where a defendant is convicted of a charge alleging a conspiracy to distribute one drug or another he must be sentenced as if the conviction were only for a conspiracy involving the drug that triggers the lowest statutory sentencing range
D. holding that a defendant can only be sentenced for misprision of felony based on drug quantities that he knew or should have known or foreseen  were involved in the conspiracy
E. holding that a cause of action accrues when the claimant knew or reasonably should have known of the wrong
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.