Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
94 S.Ct. 2963, 41 L.Ed.2d 935 (1974). Further, Sattler cannot demonstrate a legitimate claim of entitlement to a particular prison grievance procedure. See Mann v. Adams, 855 F.2d 639, 640 (9th Cir.1988). Sattler’s claim that he did not receive adequate notice that prison regulations prohibited being naked in his cell, however, may have merit. Due process requires fair notice of prohibited conduct before a sanction can be imposed. See United States v. Kozminski, 487 U.S. 931, 949-50, 108 S.Ct. 2751, 101 L.Ed.2d 788 (1988). Although “indecent exposure” was proscribed in the prison’s regulation on sexual misconduct, it is not clear that this prohibition would include Sattler’s nudity within the confines of his own cell. See United States v. Christopher, 700 F.2d 1253, 1258 (9th Cir.1983) . To the extent Sattler has alleged a due
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that a regulation must sufficiently convey the proscribed conduct when measured by common understanding and practices to avoid unconstitutional vagueness
B. holding that interpretation of regulation by va that conflicted with plain meaning of regulation not entitled to deference
C. holding that the challenge to a university regulation was moot because the regulation had been substantially amended
D. holding that the taxpayer sufficiently tendered its unconstitutional vagueness challenge against the boards regulation in the claim for a refund
E. holding that ojrdinarily when a regulation is not promulgated in compliance with the apa the regulation is invalid however when equity demands the regulation can be left in place while the agency follows the necessary procedures citation omitted
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.