Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
on vagueness grounds. See, e.g., FCC v. Fox Television Stations, Inc., — U.S. -, 132 S.Ct. 2307, 2320, 183 L.Ed.2d 234 (2012). It follows, therefore, that because the Guidelines are “equivalent” to regulations, which are subject to constitutional challenges such as vagueness, the Guidelines should also be subject to vagueness challenges. Indeed, the Supreme Court has resolved both constitutional challenges to the Guidelines as a whole and individual Guidelines provisions. See, e.g., Mistretta v. United States, 488 U.S. 361, 109 S.Ct. 647, 102 L.Ed.2d 714 (1989) (upholding Guidelines as constitutional, not an excessive delegation of legislative power or a violation of the separation-of-powers doctrine); Wade v. United States, 504 U.S. 181, 112 S.Ct. 1840, 118 L.Ed.2d 524 (1992) . And in Stinson, the Court explained that
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that where a statute provides a procedure for judicial review of a bid protest a party may not circumvent the established procedures and was obligated either to pursue its right to judicial review or to file its declaratory judgment action in compliance with the procedures for administrative appeal set out in the statute
B. holding that the action of denying parole is not an adjudication subject to judicial review
C. holding that the governments refusal to file a substantialassistance motion under ussg  5k11 is subject to judicial review for unconstitutional motive
D. holding that because here the statutes in issue provide for judicial review via citizen suit provisions yet do not set forth a standard for that review judicial review is limited to apa review on the administrative record
E. holding that the filing of a motion for reconsideration does not toll the period for seeking judicial review of the underlying order
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.