Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
F.3d 135, 143 (4th Cir.2010) (“Because we hold that an indictment need not set forth vicarious coconspirator liability, it was not error for the district court to instruct the jury on this theory.”). As members of the conspiracy, all of the defendants, including Phun, were legally responsible for the possession of firearms, which was a reasonably foreseeable act by their cocon-spirators in furtherance of that conspiracy. Pinkerton, 328 U.S. at 646-48, 66 S.Ct. 1180. 10 . The defendants do not contest, and we find, that Snyder’s testimony met Rule 701’s second requirement, as it was undoubtedly helpful to the jury's ability to understand the conversations. 11 . Even if we were to follow the Ninth Circuit's approach in United States v. Figueroa-Lopez, 125 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th Cir.1997) , there is no indication that Snyder gave any
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that an experts testimony that a victims symptoms were consistent with administration of a date rape drug were admissible
B. holding that prior drug convictions that were four ten and eleven years old were not so remote from the charged drug offenses as to render them inadmissible
C. holding that the principal is liable for an agents acts committed within the scope of the agents employment
D. holding that an expert opinion on a question of law is inadmissible
E. holding inadmissible an agents testimony that certain activities were consistent with those of an experienced drug trafficker
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.