With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". the minor in the offense or whether that defendant can be held responsible for a co-conspirator's use of a minor when that use is reasonably foreseeable. See United States v. Acosta, 474 F.3d 999, 1002 (7th Cir.2007) (describing the circuit split). Because we conclude that Juarez-Gomez took affirmative steps to involve A.G. in the drug conspiracy at issue in this case, we need not enter the debate as to whether the section 3B1.4 enhancement could also be applicable only upon evidence that the use of the minor was reasonably foreseeable to the defendant. We also take no position on whether the court's existing precedent in United States v. Moore, applying Guidelines section 3B1.3, also determines co-conspirator accountability under section 3B1.4. See 29 F.3d 175, 179 (4th Cir.1994) (<HOLDING>). 8 . We conclude that the district court did

A: holding that the criminal act of one conspirator in furtherance of the conspiracy is attributable to the other conspirators for the purpose of holding them responsible for the substantive offense 
B: holding that courier is not in position of trust
C: holding that co conspirators cannot be held responsible for another member of the conspiracys abuse of a position of trust under section 3b13 of the guidelines
D: holding that the position of special trust is not dependent on the closeness of the defendants relationship with the child
C.