Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
the ACCA and, therefore, is not subject to its fifteen-year mandatory minimum term of imprisonment. In light of the nearly identical language and interpretation of the residual clauses of the ACCA and the sentencing guideline, the court finds the residual clause of U.S.S.G. § 4B1.2(a)(2) is unconstitutionally vague. The government agreed. The court’s finding is consistent with the growing list of courts that have reached the same conclusion following Johnson. See, e.g., United States v. Madrid, 805 F.3d 1204, 1210 (10th Cir.2015) (“The concerns about judicial inconsistency that motivated the Court in Johnson lead us to conclude that the residual clause of the Guidelines is also unconstitutionally vague.”); United States v. Darden, 605 Fed.Appx. 545, 546 (6th Cir. 2015) (per curiam) ; Cornejo-Lopez, 2015 WL 7274060, at *7 (“Just
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding a defendant could not receive an enhanced sentenced under the residual clause of  4b12a2 following johnson
B. holding that the vagueness doctrine does not apply to advisory sentencing guidelines notwithstanding the governments position that the residual clause of  4b12a was unconstitutionally vague following johnson
C. holding that california residential burglary is categorically a crime of violence under the residual clause of ussg  4b12a2 which requires the criminal conduct to present a serious potential risk of physical injury to another
D. holding that johnson did not support the defendants collateral challenge under 28 usc  2255 to his sentence enhanced under the residual clause of the ussg
E. holding that the texas offense of possession of a prohibited weapon could only qualify as a crime of violence under the residual clause of  4b12a2
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.