Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
a number of integers must be factored into the calculus— e.g., the nature of the information, the nature and characteristics of the supposed criminal activity, the nature and characteristics of the place to be searched, the nature of the items delineated in the warrant — and the likely endurance of the information must be gauged on that basis. See id.; see also United States v. Moscatiello, 771 F.2d 589, 597 (1st Cir.1985), vacated on other grounds, 476 U.S. 1138, 106 S.Ct. 2241, 90 L.Ed.2d 688 (1986). The longer the expected duration of the criminal activity and the longer the expected life of the items attendant to it, the more likely that a datum from the seemingly distant past will be relevant to a current investigation. In this case, all signs point to ongoing an 10th Cir.1992) . Then, too, the troopers proposed to search
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding to like effect regarding laboratory equipment for the production of methamphetamine
B. holding that summary disposition was improper as there were factual issues regarding the scope and effect of a release
C. holding that settlement agreements like consent judgments are not given preclusive effect unless the parties manifest their intent to give them such effect
D. holding to like effect with respect to a standcommitted fine
E. holding to the same effect
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.