Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
only if the circumstances alleged to be in aggravation ... are found to be true by the trial judge ... and factual findings and reasons in support of such findings are set forth on the record at the time of sentencing.”). In effect, the State suggests that even though the fact-finder did not validly find any aggravating factor that exposed a defendant to an aggravated sentence, a sentence should be upheld if an appellate court could find in the record some aggravating factor that could expose the defendant to a greater sentence and thus allow the sentencing judge to consider other facts not found by the jury in imposing a sentence within the higher range. ¶ 18 The State misapprehends the role of a reviewing court in non-capital criminal sentencing. When a trial court im (3d Cir.2003) . The State also assumes that an unenumerated
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that juvenile adjudications are prior convictions for purposes of the apprendi exception and indicating that the main concern in apprendi was whether the prior convictions procedural safeguards ensured a reliable result not that there had to be a right to a jury trial
B. holding that a juvenile adjudication may be used as a prior conviction for apprendi purposes
C. holding that the prior conviction exception should not extend to nonjury juvenile adjudications
D. holding that a juvenile adjudication should not be counted as a prior conviction for apprendi purposes
E. holding that a nonjury juvenile adjudication that  afforded all constitutionallyrequired procedural safeguards can properly be characterized as a prior conviction for apprendi purposes
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.