Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
held that “ ‘in a case such as this the defendant, by deliberately choosing to seek termination of the proceedings against him on a basis unrelated to factual guilt or innocence ... suffers no injury cognizable under the Double Jeopardy Clause[.]” Ricketts, 483 U.S. at 11, 107 S.Ct. 2680 (emphasis added). Here, Appellant has successfully demonstrated that, but for the Sixth Amendment violation, he would have demanded “termi nation of the proceedings against him on a basis unrelated to factual guilt or innocence.” Both parties, therefore, must be returned to their original position. Once Appellant and the State are returned to the status quo ante, Appellant could be subject to trial for capital murder. Compare Chaffin v. Stynehcombe, 412 U.S. 17, 35, 93 S.Ct. 1977, 36 L.Ed.2d 714 (1973) , and United States v. Bordeaux, 121 F.3d 1187
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that retrial did not violate the double jeopardy clause where reversal based on trial error distinguishing reversal for insufficient evidence
B. holding possibility of more severe sentence on retrial after appeal or collateral attack does not violate double jeopardy or due process protections
C. holding that imposition of more severe sentence following trial de novo does violate defendants due process rights
D. holding that doctrine does not violate due process
E. holding that if defendant moved for or consented to mistrial retrial of defendant was not barred on double jeopardy grounds
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.