Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
the defendant in view of ... its financial condition.” Fifth, the instruction told the jury that in fixing punitive damages, it could consider the “nature of defendant’s conduct” and “plaintiffs actual damages.” Haslip recognized the “plaintiffs actual damages” as an important constitutional factor with respect to punitive damages. See BMW of North America, Inc. v. Gore, 517 U.S. 559, 580-81, 116 S.Ct. 1589, 1601-02, 134 L.Ed.2d 809, 829-30 (1996) (citing Haslip, 499 U.S. at 23-24, 111 S.Ct. at 1046, 113 L.Ed.2d at 23). In addition, separate instructions defined “willful and wanton conduct” and “preponderance of clear, convincing, and satisf aslip holding and therefore has demonstrated no constitutional or legal error. State ex rel. Miller v. DeCoster, 596 N.W.2d 898, 904 (Iowa 1999) ; Olson v. Nieman’s, Ltd., 579 N.W.2d 299, 316
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding we review claim construction de novo on appeal
B. holding that we review a district courts interpretation of a statute de novo
C. holding that we review agency determinations of law de novo
D. holding that we review issues of statutory interpretation de novo
E. holding that we review constitutional challenges de novo
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.