Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
installation services. In addition, Siemens has stated that when installation services are provided, “they are part and parcel of the contract for sale of equipment to the customer.” These are clear indications that Siemens has provided recurrent work for installation services as defined by the Kentucky courts. See Cain, 236 S.W.3d at 588; Fireman’s Fund Insurance Company v. Sherman & Fletcher, 705 S.W.2d 459, 462 (Ky.1986) (finding that “a person who engages another to perform a part of the work which is a recurrent part of his business, trade, or occupation is a contractor”). Siemens has also continued to provide installation services since the NAS contract and indicates that this work is recurrent. See Daniels v. Louisville Gas and Electric Company, 933 S.W.2d 821, 823 (Ky.App.1996) . We find that Plaintiffs placed an unwarranted
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that uncharged conduct may be considered at sentencing when that conduct is proven by a preponderance of the evidence
B. holding that lg  e may be classified as a contractor when it subcontracted with tsa to conduct emissions testing at irregular or sporadic intervals which satisfied the definition of regular or recurrent work
C. holding that when attorneys were acting as members of the firm with respect to the case in question section 504b1 applies to allow  fee sharing with any member whether that membership is regular or sporadic
D. holding that duty to ensure that independent contractor performs its work in safe manner arises if the general contractor retains some control over the manner in which the independent contractor performs its work
E. holding that if contractor is hable to sub that liability though not yet satisfied by payment might well constitute actual damages to the contractor and sustain their suit under rule that contractor may only sue to recover its own damages
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.