Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
supreme court. That court should decide if the subsequent case law in this area would cause a re-evaluation of the conclusion reached in 1985. See Valerio v. Bayer, Case No. 98-99033 [2000 WL 425016] (9th Cir. April 19, 2000) (a Nevada case in which the court upheld the Nevada Supreme Court’s ability to limit the unconstitutional depravity instruction and affirm the sentence). Moreover, since this court has already upheld an aggravating factor, it is not necessary for it to reach the ultimate conclusion on this issue. The court notes, however, that all of the evidence related to torture and Cir.1989), vacated on other grounds sub nom. Angelone v. Deutscher, 500 U.S. 901, 111 S.Ct. 1678, 114 L.Ed.2d 73 (1991) (same); see also McKenna v. McDaniel, 65 F.3d 1483, 1487-90 (9th Cir. 1995) . The Nevada Supreme Court’s holding, on
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that an aggravating circumstance in the georgia death penalty statute was unconstitutionally vague
B. holding factor b is not unconstitutionally vague
C. holding that oklahomas especially heinous atrocious or cruel aggravating circumstance was unconstitutionally vague
D. holding a similar nevada aggravating circumstance unconstitutionally vague under godfrey
E. holding unconstitutionally vague under the reasoning of godfrey an aggravatingcircumstances instruction directing jurors to determine whether the murder was especially heinous atrocious and cruel
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.