Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
cocaine doses. The investigators further searched Defendant’s car and found neither drugs nor paraphernalia. The State’s meager evidence of intent to sell cannot be considered “substantial evidence” supporting the charge of possession of cocaine with intent to sell. See State v. Wiggins, 33 N.C. App. 291, 294-95, 235 S.E.2d 265, 268, cert. denied, 293 N.C. 592, 241 S.E.2d 513 (1977) (A relatively small drug quantity alone, “without some additional evidence, is not sufficient to raise an inference that the [drug] was for the purpose of distribution.”). We therefore reverse Defendant’s conviction and remand this matter to the trial court for resentencing on the lesser-included offense of possession of cocaine. See State v. Simmons, 165 N.C. App. 685, 689, 599 S.E.2d 109, 112 (2004) ; State v. Robinson, 160 N.C. App. 564, 565,
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that a prior conviction for possession with intent to distribute cocaine is admissible under rule 609
B. holding that simple possession of cocaine is not lesser included offense of conspiracy to possess cocaine with intent to distribute
C. recognizing possession of cocaine as a lesserincluded offense of possession of cocaine with intent to sell
D. holding that in prosecution for possession of a controlled substance cocaine possession of cutting reagents used to dilute cocaine and heroin was not other crimes evidence because possession of these substances is legal
E. holding similar evidence sufficient to sustain a jury verdict of possession with intent to distribute cocaine
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.