Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
have previously rejected similar arguments and recently addressed this same issue in Marek v. State, where we explained: With regard to the claim about the length of time Marek has spent on death row, we have previously rejected similar arguments. In Tompkins [v. State], 994 So.2d [1072, 1085 (Fla.2008)], we held that twenty-three years on death row did not constitute cruel and unusual punishment. We explained that 0 L.Ed.2d 89 (2008); Elledge v. State, 911 So.2d 57, 76 (Fla.2005) (finding no merit in constitutional claim predicated on the cruel and unusual nature of prolonged stay on death row); Lucas v. State, 841 So.2d 380, 389 (Fla.2003) (concluding that twenty-five years on death row does not constitute cruel and unusual punishment); Foster v. State, 810 So.2d 910, 916 (Fla.2002) . Therefore, Johnston’s claim that execution
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that seventyfive to ninetynine years for robbery is not cruel and unusual punishment
B. holding that what constitutes cruel and unusual punishment is a question of law
C. holding that twentythree years on death row is not cruel and unusual punishment
D. holding that the fact that defendant spent years on death row awaiting execution does not render the death penalty cruel and unusual punishment
E. holding cruel and unusual punishment complaint not preserved
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.