Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
that the remedy provided to Simmons when Missouri held his death sentence to be unconstitutional was life without possibility of parole. 112 S.W.3d at 413. This case, of course, does not involve the death penalty. Neither the United States Supreme Court nor the Supreme Court of Florida has held that a sentence of life without possibility of parole is unconstitutional when applied to a person under the age of eighteen. Without such a ruling, Mr. Culpepper does not have an issue raising a “fundamental constitutional right” that can be raised at this time. See Fla. R.Crim. P. 3.850(b)(2); Witt v. State, 387 So.2d 922, 930 (Fla.1980); Margarejo v. State, No. 2D07-700, — So.2d -, 2007 WL 4404602 (Fla. 2d DCA Dec. 19, 2007); see also Sims v. Commonwealth, 233 S.W.3d 731, 733 (Ky.App.2007) . We note that Mr. Culpepper’s motion for
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding unconstitutional defendants sentence of death based upon the holding in roper supra and remanding for the montgomery circuit court to set aside the defendants death sentence and to sentence him to the only other sentence available  life in the penitentiary without the possibility of parole
B. recognizing that before the case was submitted to the jury the trial court charged the jury that if it were unable to reach a unanimous recommendation the court would impose a sentence of life imprisonment without the possibility of parole
C. holding that after roper juvenile convictions can qualify as predicate offenses for sentence enhancement purposes
D. holding that the imposition of a life sentence on a juvenile does not violate the holding of roper
E. holding that roper did not support a similar postconviction claim and noting that roper contained obiter dictum to the effect that life imprisonment without the possibility of parole remains a permissible sentence for such offenders
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.