Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
to obtain an inheritance or a share under a partnership agreement. So defined, the factor provides clear guidance. Aggravating circumstances must provide a ‘“meaningful basis for distinguishing the few cases in which [death] is imposed from the many cases in which it is not.’ ” Gregg v. Georgia, 428 U.S. 153, 188, 96 S.Ct. 2909, 2932, 49 L.Ed.2d 859, 883 (1976) (opinion of Stewart, Powell, and Stevens, JJ.) (quoting Furman v. Georgia, 408 U.S. 238, 313, 92 S.Ct. 2726, 2764, 33 L.Ed.2d 346, 392 (1972) (White, J., concurring)). In Godfrey v. Georgia, 446 U.S. 420, 100 S.Ct. 1759, 64 L.Ed.2d 398 (1980), the Supreme Court struck down an aggravating circumstance so vaguely worded that it failed to perform this narrowing function. See also Ramseur, supra, 106 N.J. at 199-200, 524 A.2d 188 . We find no vagueness in the factor on its
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding residual clause of acca void for vagueness
B. holding a law is void for vagueness when it offers no standard of conduct that was possible to know emphasis added
C. holding that va code  182603 is not void for vagueness
D. holding c4c factor void for vagueness unless limiting construction was given
E. holding that   750170 is not void for vagueness nor constitutionally infirm for overbreadth
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.