Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
of the statute as a whole. The government’s argument that simple assault applies only to the “assault prong” of § 111(a)(1) makes little sense when considering § 111(a)(2), which punishes one who “assaults or intimidates” a former federal officer. If simple assault did not apply to the remainder of § 111(a)(1), we would be left with two unavailing alternatives before us: either simple assault does not apply to § 111(a)(2) at all; or that the simple assault provision applies only to the word “assault” of §§ 111(a)(1) and (a)(2). The former does little to carry out the purpose of the statute because it would afford greater protection to those without pr ontext of § 111, the definition of simple assault is conduct in violation of § 111(a) ....”) (emphasis added); Ramirez, 233 F.3d at 322  (emphasis in original). Of the remaining cases
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that statute which defined sexual contact as any touching of the anus breast or any part of the genitals of another person with intent to arouse or gratify the sexual desire of any person was not vague
B. holding that punching another person is a statutory assault
C. holding that crime definition and penalty powers are essential legislative functions that cannot constitutionally be delegated by the utah legislature to any other person or body
D. holding statutory definition of all other cases assault to be any physical contact which by which a person forcibly assaults resists impedes intimidates or interferes with 
E. holding that a broad statutory definition of a term that was inconsistent with the terms plain meaning did not affect the terms definition in other contexts
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.