Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
schemes. See State v. Hoskins, 199 Ariz. 127, 14 P.3d 997 (2000), cert. denied, — U.S.-, 122 S.Ct. 386, 151 L.Ed.2d 294 (2001) (the Arizona Supreme Court followed the United States Supreme Court’s holding in Walton in denying a claim that the Arizona death penalty law was unconstitutional because it eliminated jury consideration in the sentencing process); People v. Anderson, 25 Cal.4th 543, 601, 106 Cal.Rptr.2d 575, 22 P.3d 347, 386 (2001) (the California Supreme Court rejected the argument that the California death penalty statute was unconstitutional because it did not require “(3) findings that aggravation outweighs mitigation beyond a reasonable doubt, or (4) findings that death is the appropriate penalty beyond a reasonable doubt”); Weeks v. State, 761 A.2d 804 (Del.2000) ; Mills v. Moore, 786 So.2d 532, 536-37
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that apprendi does not apply retroactively
B. holding that apprendi does not apply to capital sentencing schemes
C. holding apprendi does not apply to consecutive sentencing
D. holding that apprendi does not apply on collateral review
E. holding that apprendi does not apply to state capital sentencing schemes where judges are required to find certain aggravating circumstances before imposing a death sentence
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.