Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
possession is sufficient.” Payton, 159 F.3d at 56. And we have explained that a defendant is subject to a two-level enhancement under § 2Dl.l(b)(l) for possession of a dangerous weapon if he “constructively possessed the weapon by having. dominion ... or control over the item itself, or dominion over the premises where the item [was] located.” United States v. Ortega, 94 F.3d 764, 768 (2d Cir.1996) (internal quotation marks omitted); see also United States v. Pellegrini, 929 F.2d 55, 56 (2d Cir.1991) (per curiam). We see no reason why, for purposes of the safety valve, possession would not similarly include constructive possession, at least where the defendant keeps the weapon under his personal dominion and control. See United States v. Bolka, 355 F.3d 909, 915-16 (6th Cir.2004) . The safety valve was intended to prevent
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that defendant was not entitled to safetyvalve relief where evidence showed that he kept three firearms in the home where he sold and manufactured methamphetamine
B. holding that a defendant had constructive possession over firearms located in a residence where he lived and kept his personal effects
C. holding that a convicted felon is not entitled to return of firearms or to have firearms held in trust by third party
D. holding that a convicted felon is not entitled to have firearms returned held in trust or sold for his profit
E. holding that a defendant was not entitled to the affirmative defense where the evidence did not support his contention that he did not aid in the homicidal act
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.