Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
anatomical areas.” Id. at 1503-1504. When terms are defined, however, a vagueness argument generally fails. See e.g., Young v. American Mini Theatres, supra, 427 U.S. at 60-62, 96 S.Ct. at 2447-2448, 49 L.Ed.2d at 320-321; Berg v. Health & Hospital Corp., supra, 865 F.2d at 803. See also State v. Lee, 96 N.J. 156, 166, 475 A.2d 31 (1984). Here, N.J.S.A 2C:33-12.2 clearly defines specified sexual activity. In addition, N.J.S.A 2C:33-12.2a(4) contains the verb “facilitate,” which has uniformly been found not to offend the vagueness doctrine. See e.g., Matter of Kaster, 454 N.W.2d 876 (Iowa 1990) (reasoning that proscribed criminal activity was clearly defined and “facilitate” in the context of a forfeiture statute was not vague); People v. Chastain, 733 P.2d 1206, 1209 (Colo.1987) ; State v. Bush, 195 Mont. 475, 636 P.2d 849,
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. recognizing that congress desired a broad definition of a claim 
B. holding that possession of burglary tools is an offense separate from burglary
C. holding that the double jeopardy clause was not violated by two convictions arising from the same criminal episode because the crimes of attempted burglary and possession of burglary tools each had an element the other did not and were thus separate crimes
D. recognizing broad definition of proscribed tools which facilitate burglary reflected legislatures understanding that a burglars choice of tool is limited only by his imagination and ingenuity
E. holding that virginia burglary statute comes within definition of generic burglary
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.