Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
Fire Dep’t, 607 F.2d 17, 27 (2d Cir.1979); see also Grayned, 408 U.S. at 108, 92 S.Ct. 2294 (explaining that the Court’s concern about vague laws is that they do not give people a “reasonable opportunity to know what is prohibited” and “may trap the innocent by not providing fair warning”). In this case, it is undisputed that Perez was warned by the Stewards that his conduct would subject him to a fíne. See Janusaitis, 607 F.2d at 27 (rejecting vagueness challenge where plaintiff received a “specific warning” to cease his conduct and holding that plaintiff should have recognized that his actions would be viewed as a violation of the rule prohibiting “unbecoming conduct detrimental to the welfare or good name of the Department”); In re Bithoney, 486 F.2d 319, 324 (1st Cir.1973) ; cf. diLeo, 541 F.2d at 953 (finding that
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that because respondent received a direct and specific warning from the court that his continued abuse of  process would constitute conduct unbecoming a member of the bar regulation under which respondent was penalized was not vague
B. recognizing that the regulation was drafted pursuant to direct statutory authority
C. holding district courts dismissal following explicit and reasonable warning was not an abuse of discretion
D. holding facta was not vague and ambiguous and that defendants conduct was willful
E. holding that pma process is not specific regulation because the requirements are not contained in formal regulation
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.