Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
JJ., who dissent. 1 . The Trust had entered into a management agreement with Wolford under which Wol-ford was responsible for the contract, including its recording. LARSON, Justice (dissenting). I dissent because section 558.46 does not clearly provide for criminal, as opposed to civil, punishment. In such a case, doubts must be resolved in favor of the defendant. See Rewis v. United States, 401 U.S. 808, 812, 91 S.Ct. 1056, 1059, 28 L.Ed.2d 493, 497 (1971) (“[Ajmbiguity concerning the ambit of criminal statutes should be resolved in favor of lenity.”). The majority holds that section 558.46(2) i whether a statute imposes civil or criminal sanctions, “we must seek out and give effect to the intention of the legislature.... ” Lenertz v. Mun. Ct., 219 N.W.2d 513, 515-16 (Iowa 1974) ; see 36A C.J.S. Fines § 2, at 206 (“The true
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that we may consult legislative history as an aid to the interpretation of ambiguous text
B. holding that even where there are  contrary indications in the statutes legislative history we do not resort to legislative history to cloud a statutory text that is clear
C. holding that the court does not examine legislative history when the statutes text and context are not subject to more than one plausible reading
D. holding a court may consider a defendants criminal history even if that history is included in the defendants criminal history category
E. holdingafter considering the statutes whole text legislative history and purpose  that a consumer fraud provision did not impose criminal sanctions
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.