Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
Code does not survive intermediate scrutiny, and is void on its face because the statute is overbroad, reaching a substantial amount of constitutionally protected conduct. See Stevens, 130 S.Ct. at 1587. Conclusion Based on the foregoing, we hold subsection 21.15(b)(1) of the Texas Penal Code is void on its face as it fails intermediate scrutiny and violates the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution because it is over-broad. Accordingly, we reverse the trial court’s denial of Thompson’s application for writ of habeas corpus and remand this matter to the trial court to enter an order dismissing the prosecution, i.e. all charges against Thompson on alleged violations of section 21.15(b)(1) of the Texas Penal Code. See Long v. State, 931 S.W.2d 285, 297 (Tex.Crim.App.1996) (en banc) . 1 . Thompson does not argue or provide
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding statutory provision is unconstitutionally vague on its face and remanding case to trial court to enter order dismissing prosecution
B. holding court must have evidence to support dismissal before dismissing a case for fraud on the court
C. holding provision in contempt order void because it punished relator for violating order that trial court lacked authority to enter
D. holding that the trial court had abused its discretion in dismissing the case without allowing appellants an opportunity to amend
E. holding that when the trial court signed an order dismissing the plaintiffs complaint but refused to enter a final judgment on that order the order refusing to enter judgment was appealable under former ors 190102a
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.