Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
40 L.Ed.2d 15 (1974) (quoting Colten v. Kentucky, 407 U.S. 104, 110, 92 S.Ct. 1953, 32 L.Ed.2d 584 (1972)). Furthermore, the Supreme Court has expressed “greater tolerance of enactments with civil rather than criminal penalties because the consequences of imprecision are qualitatively less severe.” Village of Hoffman Estates v. Flipside, Hoffman Estates, Inc., 455 U.S. 489, 498-99, 102 S.Ct. 1186, 71 L.Ed.2d 362 (1982). The evaluation of whether section 4022.13 is vague as applied to Perez must be made with respect to Perez’s actual conduct “and not with respect to hypothetical situations at the periphery of the [regulation’s] scope or with respect to the conduct of other parties who might not be forewarned by the broad language.” diLeo v. Greenfield, 541 F.2d 949, 953 (2d Cir.1976) ; see also United States v. Rybicki, 354 F.3d
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding appellant waived his challenge to statute as vague as applied because he did not specifically object at trial
B. holding that statute that permitted termination of teachers for due and sufficient cause was not vague as applied
C. holding that attorney disciplinary rule was unconstitutionally vague as applied
D. holding statute unconstitutionally vague as applied to mere possession of money on jail premises
E. holding that although a reason was provided in the termination letter the without cause termination provision was applicable
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.