Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
CURIAM. Defendant Phillip Davis pleaded guilty to two counts of distributing controlled substances in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841, and the district court sentenced him to 120 months of imprisonment. The sole issue on appeal is whether the district court erred in designating Davis as a “career offender” pursuant to U.S. Sentencing Guidelines § 4B1.1 in light of Johnson v. United States, — U.S. —, 135 S.Ct. 2551, 192 L.Ed.2d 569 (2015) (invalidating as unconstitutionally vague the “residual clause” of the Armed Career Criminal Act, 18 U.S.C. § 924(e)). For the reasons set forth in our recent decision in United States v. Pawlak, No. 15-3566, slip op. at 2-13, 822 F.3d 902, 903-11, 2016 WL 2802723 (6th Cir. May 13, 2016) , and upon the government’s concession of
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding an identical residual clause in the us sentencing guidelines unconstitutionally vague
B. holding that attorney disciplinary rule was unconstitutionally vague as applied
C. holding that essentially equivalent is unconstitutionally vague
D. holding that the vagueness doctrine does not apply to advisory sentencing guidelines notwithstanding the governments position that the residual clause of  4b12a was unconstitutionally vague following johnson
E. holding factor b is not unconstitutionally vague
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.