Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
(quoting Smith, 461 U.S. at 55 n. 21, 103 S.Ct. 1625). Finally, Mendez clearly rejects ASARCO’s argument that $9 in punitive damages should be the constitutional limit on an award of $1 in nominal damages, instead recognizing that a higher ratio may be warranted by the need to deter future misconduct. See id. (noting that the district court held that such a small award would not be “sufficient to deter other [defendants] from engaging in similar conduct in the future,” and agreeing that the second Gore guidepost may have reduced relevance in § 1983 suits involving only nominal damages, and expressly rejecting the defendants’ contention that $18 in punitive damages was the constitutional maximum on the award of $1 in nominal damages on two claims); and compare Murray, 55 F.3d at 1453 ; Bains, 405 F.3d at 775 (post-BMW case
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. recognizing that deterrence relates to reprehensibility in that the conduct must be so reprehensible as to warrant imposition of punitive damages as a further sanction to achieve punishment and deterrence
B. holding prebmw that deterrence is relevant to the determination of constitutionally permissible punitive damages
C. holding a court may not award punitive damages
D. holding that punitive damages are not fines
E. holding without discussion of the punitive damages issue that judgment for embezzlement which included actual and punitive damages was nondischargeable
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.