Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
The sentencing court, however, is not required to articulate every factor provided in La.Code Crim.P. art. 894.1 so long as the record reflects these factors were considered in particularizing the sentence of the defendant. State v. Morgan, 428 So.2d 1215 (La.App. 3 Cir.1983), writ denied, 433 So.2d 166. The Louisiana Supreme Court has held that the lack of compliance with the sentencing guidelines does not necessarily require sentences be set aside if the record otherwise clearly illumines the trial court’s sentencing choice and demonstrates the sentence is not arbitrary or excessive. State v. Martin, 400 So.2d 1063, on rehearing, 400 So.2 o.2d 831 (La.1992) (requiring an “articulated justification for the near-maximum sentence”); State v. Sanders, 542 So.2d 1134 (La.App. 3 Cir.1989) ; State v. Jones, 537 So.2d 848 (La.App. 5
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that the police have an automatic right to conduct a protective search of a burglary suspect because burglary is a crime for which an offender would likely be armed
B. holding that iowa burglary is not categorical burglary as the elements of iowa burglary law are broader than those of generic burglary
C. holding that eighteen years for a second offender convicted of simple burglary was not excessive
D. holding that in california one may be convicted of burglary even if he enters with consent
E. holding that possession of burglary tools is an offense separate from burglary
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.