With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". GHB, Congress declared that “[i]f taken for human consumption, common industrial chemicals such as gamma butyrolactone [GBL] and 1,4-butane-diol [BD] are swiftly converted by the body into GHB. Illicit use of these and other GHB analogues and precursor chemicals is a si to put any drug merchant on notice that GBL qualifies as a controlled substance analogue. Thus having acknowledged that he knew he was selling substances containing GBL, Turcotte cannot then turn around and claim that he had no knowledge of GBL’s- status as an analogue of GHB. As with other known controlled substances (including GHB), knowledge of the substance’s specific identity implies knowledge of the substance’s legal status. Ignorance of the relevant legal provisions is no defense. See Ansaldi, 372 F.3d at 128 (<HOLDING>); United States v. Desurra, 865 F.2d 651, 653

A: holding that neglect was not excusable where the defendants did not do all that they were required to do after they received the summons and complaint in that they did not contact a lawyer or make any other arrangements with respect to their defense
B: holding that a change in the law of sentencing does not constitute a new factor
C: holding that defendants belief that they were breaking no law by selling gbl does not constitute a defense
D: holding that defendants failure to assert the defense in any pretrial motions did not waive defendants limitations defense because the assertion of a limitations defense in the answer preserved defendants right to raise the defense both during the first trial and before the second
C.