Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
carefully guard against dilution of the principle that guilt is to be established by probative evidence and beyond a reasonable doubt.’ ” Smith, 718 F.2d at 1276 (quoting Estelle v. Williams, 425 U.S. 501, 503, 96 S.Ct. 1691, 1693, 48 L.Ed.2d 126 (1976)). The reasonable doubt instruction in this case, viewed in the context of the charge as a whole, diluted this burden by creating a standard that “could mislead [the members of the court-martial] into finding no reasonable doubt when in fact there was some.” Holland, 348 U.S. at 140, 75 S.Ct. at 138. The strongest language in the charge that might serve to correct this impression, that stating that “[p]roof beyond a reasonable doubt means proof to a moral certainty,” see United States v. Smaldone, 485 F.2d 1333, 1347-48 (10th Cir.1973) , cert. denied, 416 U.S. 936, 94 S.Ct. 1934, 40
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding when ordinance language is clear courts must give language its plain meaning
B. holding that the court did not abuse its discretion by tracking the statutory language in the instruction
C. holding that instructions are sufficient which substantially follow the language of the statute or use equivalent language
D. holding that when language is exactly the same in two statutory provisions the meaning of that language is also identical
E. holding that moral certainty language compensated for willing to act language in an otherwise proper reasonable doubt instruction
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.