Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
is not.’ ” Id. (quoting Gregg, 428 U.S. at 188, 96 S.Ct. 2909) (alteration in original). In the case of statutory aggravating circumstances in a capital punishment scheme, a circumstance may be so vague as to provide no such meaningful basis for distinguishing a death penalty case from other murders and, thereby, run afoul of the Eighth Amendment prohibition against the imposition of cruel and unusual punishment. Such “[c]laims of vagueness ... characteristically assert that the challenged provision fails adequately to inform juries what they must find to impose the death penalty and as a result leaves them and appellate courts with the kind of open-ended discretion which was held invalid in Furman.” Maynard v. Cartwright, 486 U.S. 356, 361-362, 108 S.Ct. 1853, 100 L.Ed.2d 372 (1988) ; see also Godfrey, 446 U.S. at 428-29, 100
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that heinous atrocious or cruel is unconstitutionally vague language
B. holding that oklahomas especially heinous atrocious or cruel aggravating circumstance was unconstitutionally vague
C. holding that there is no serious argument that the especially heinous cruel or depraved aggravating factor is not facially vague
D. recognizing that north carolinas heinous atrocious or cruel aggravating circumstance requires a limiting construction
E. holding unconstitutionally vague under the reasoning of godfrey an aggravatingcircumstances instruction directing jurors to determine whether the murder was especially heinous atrocious and cruel
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.