Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
Code where the General Assembly has prohibited conduct with statutes that rely on individualized assessments by those enforcing the laws, including: (1) Va. Code § 18.2-60.3 (stalking); (2) Va. Code § 18.2-153 (obstructing canal or ther states have held that their respective “following too closely” statutes, with almost identical language to the Virginia statute, are not unconstitutionally vague. See, e.g., State v. Maga, 2008-Ohio-423, P48-P55, 2008 Ohio App. LEXIS 375, at *13-16 (Ct. App. Ohio 2008) (Ohio Rev. Code Ann. § 4511.34); Tennessee v. Harton, 108 S.W.3d 253, 258-60 (Tenn. Crim. App. 2002) (Tenn. Code Ann. § 55-8-124(a)); State v. Shapiro, 751 So. 2d 337, 341-42 (La. App. 4th Cir. 1999) (La. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 32:81). 2 See Wilson v. State, 262 S.E.2d 810, 812-13 (Ga. 1980)
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding factor b is not unconstitutionally vague
B. holding that georgias reckless driving statute now ga code ann  406390 which is similar in substance to the virginia statute is not unconstitutionally vague
C. holding va code  182460a is not unconstitutionally vague
D. holding flag contempt statute unconstitutionally vague
E. holding that indianas public intoxication statute ind code  71513 which is similar in substance to the virginia statute is not unconstitutionally vague
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.