Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
original sentencing hearing was legally insufficient to support such a finding. In Butler v. State, 46 Md.App. 317, 416 A.2d 773 (1980), we vacated an enhanced sentence, imposed under section 643B(c), based on two prior convictions for crimes of violence, because one conviction was not final and the other conviction, for robbery in the District of Columbia, may have been for a crime of violence bu 309 (2003) (“While we recognize that we have found New Hampshire’s Double Jeopardy Clause to provide greater protection than its federal counterpart in certain circumstances ... we are not persuaded that we should interpret the State Constitution differently than the Federal Constitution in this context.") (citation omitted); Commonwealth v. Wilson, 594 Pa. 106, 116 n.6, 934 A.2d 1191 (2007) . 6 , The defense maintained that the
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that under monge double jeopardy does not prevent retrial of an aggravating factor for sentencing purposes
B. holding that double jeopardy protections did not prevent the state from presenting evidence of youthschool sentencing enhancement when the original sentence was overturned on appeal
C. holding possibility of more severe sentence on retrial after appeal or collateral attack does not violate double jeopardy or due process protections
D. holding that the government could appeal a criminal sentence without violating the double jeopardy clause when congress expressly authorized such an appeal
E. holding that the double jeopardy clause did not bar resentencing on counts that were affirmed on appeal when a sentence of imprisonment on another count was vacated
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.