Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
123 S.Ct. 1179, 155 L.Ed.2d 108 (2003) (rejecting Eighth Amendment challenge to prison term of twenty-five-years to life under California’s “three strikes law” for a recidivist who was convicted of stealing golf clubs worth $1,200). While it was previously unclear to lower courts whether the proportionality requirements of the Eight portionality review is one of several respects in which we have held that ‘death is different,’ and have imposed protections that the Constitution nowhere else provides.”) (citations omitted). For non-capital cases, it is only an “extraordinary case” where “the gross disproportionality principle reserves a constitutional violation.” Lockyer v. Andrade, 538 U.S. 68, 77, 123 S.Ct. 1166, 155 L.Ed.2d 144 (2003); see also Solem, 463 U.S. at 277, 103 S.Ct. 3001 ; Weems, 217 U.S. at 349, 30 S.Ct. 544
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that it was a violation of the eighth amendment to sentence a defendant to life for a seventh nonviolent felony of writing a bad check for 10000
B. holding unconstitutional a sentence of life imprisonment for passing a bad check by a convicted felon
C. holding that dual convictions of possession of a firearm by a convicted felon and possession of ammunition by a convicted felon violated double jeopardy
D. holding the defendant was a convicted felon within the purview of the federal statute prohibiting the receiving and possession of firearms by a convicted felon where the defendants prior conviction was based on an idaho state probated sentence
E. holding that sentence was erroneous but not void where sentence of life imprisonment without parole was imposed for first degree murder under unconstitutional penalty statute
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.