Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
mitigating circumstances in this case. We believe the testimony demonstrated Johnston to be a generally honest lawyer. See Iowa Supreme Ct. Bd. of Prof'l Ethics & Conduct v. Isaacson, 565 N.W.2d 315, 317 (Iowa 1997) (“We consider a lawyer’s general character for honesty ... in applying sanctions.”). In addition, he acknowledged he violated our disciplinary rules in certain respects. See Iowa Supreme Ct. Bd. of Prof'l Ethics & Conduct v. Tofflemire, 689 N.W.2d 83, 93 (Iowa 2004) (“A mitigating factor is the attorney’s recognition of some wrongdoing.”). Furthermore, the prior discipline imposed on Johnston carries little weight as an aggravating factor under the circumstances of this case. See Iowa Supreme Ct. Bd. of Prof'l Ethics & Conduct v. Hohenadel, 634 N.W.2d 652, 656 (Iowa 2002) . Johnston’s previous discipline was imposed
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. recognizing a heightened interest in ensuring discipline in police departments
B. holding that torture is something more severe than the kind of treatment that would suffice to prove persecution
C. recognizing prosecutors implicit obligation to refrain from suggesting more severe sentencing alternatives
D. holding that seconddegree manslaughter was not a crime of violence and thus was not an aggravated felony warranting an aliens removal
E. recognizing a previous reprimand was an aggravating circumstance warranting more severe discipline
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.