Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
on those more likely to prevail, far from evidence of incompetence, is the hallmark of effective appellate advocacy.” Id. (internal quotation marks omitted). It has long been settled that a state’s capital sentencing scheme may not allow for the imposition of the death penalty in channeling and limiting of the sentencer’s discretion in imposing the death penalty is a fundamental constitutional requirement for sufficiently minimizing the risk of wholly arbitrary and capricious action.” Maynard, 486 U.S. at 362, 108 S.Ct. 1853. A statutory circumstance that is alone too vague to provide meaningful guidance to the sentencer may be accompanied by a limiting instruction which does provide sufficient guidance. See Shell v. Mississippi, 498 U.S. 1, 1-3, 111 S.Ct. 313, 112 L.Ed.2d 1 (1990) ; Walton v. Arizona, 497 U.S. 639, 653, 110
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding unconstitutionally vague under the reasoning of godfrey an aggravatingcircumstances instruction directing jurors to determine whether the murder was especially heinous atrocious and cruel
B. recognizing that north carolinas heinous atrocious or cruel aggravating circumstance requires a limiting construction
C. holding that oklahomas especially heinous atrocious or cruel aggravating circumstance was unconstitutionally vague
D. holding that heinous atrocious or cruel is unconstitutionally vague language
E. holding that a limit ing instruction which defined the terms heinous atrocious or cruel in equally vague language was not constitutionally sufficient
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.