Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
to App. C, amend. 706; see also id. amend. 713; Sentencing Guidelines for United States Courts, 72 Fed.Reg. 28571-28572 (2007). We acknowledge that U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10 can be read to permit a reduced sentence only where the defendant’s pre-departure sentencing range is found within the crack cocaine guidelines. However, “the meaning of language is inherently contextual [and] the [Supreme] Court has always reserved lenity for those situations in which a reasonable doubt persists about a statute’s intended scope even after resort to the language and structure, legislative history, and motivating policies of the statute.” United States v. Dauray, 215 F.3d 257, 264 (2d Cir.2000) (alteration and quotation marks omitted); see also United States v. Simpson, 319 F.3d 81, 86-87 (2d Cir.2002) . Here, we conclude that there is ambiguity as
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that the rule of lenity applies only if the provision being construed is still ambiguous after the application of normal rules of construction
B. holding that the rule of lenity applies to sentencing guidelines
C. recognizing that the rule of lenity applies only after courts exhaust all other evidence of congressional meaning
D. holding in sentencing guidelines context that the rule of lenity requires that we construe ambiguous terms in favor of the accused
E. holding rule of lenity in the penal context to be a rule of last resort
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.