Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
to Batoon — is without merit. Nor does Alcantera’s sentence violate Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 120 S.Ct. 2348, 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000). A. Minor Role Reduction In United States v. Haut, 107 F.3d 213, 218 (3d Cir.1997), we held that we must sustain the District Court’s factual findings as to a § 3B1.2 minimal or minor role adjustment unless those findings are clearly erroneous. See id. (“We review under a clearly erroneous standard the district court’s factual determinations, such as whether a defendant receives a reduced or increased offense level based on his role in the offense.”); United States v. Carr, 25 F.3d 1194, 1207 (3d Cir.1994); United States v. Bierley, 922 F.2d 1061, 1064 (3d Cir.1990) (citing United States v. Mejia-Orosco, 867 F.2d 216, 220-21 (5th Cir.1989) ). A decision is clearly erroneous if the
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that we review for clear error a district courts factual determination of a defendants role in an offense for purposes of applying ussg  3b11a
B. holding that role in the offense is a factual determination albeit complex a district courts decision not to apply an adjustment based on such a determination is reversed only for clear error
C. holding that a district courts determination as to the applicability of a privilege is reviewed for clear error
D. holding that a determination as to a defendants credibility for a safety valve reduction is a factual finding that is reviewed for clear error
E. holding that summary judgment may be reversed when it is based on an error of law
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.