With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". Court held unconstitutional a California statute that targeted anyone who "loiters or wanders upon the streets or from place to place without apparent reason or business and who refuses to identify himself and to account for his presence when requested by any peace officer to do so, if the surrounding circumstances are such as to indicate to a reasonable man that the public safety demands such identification," id. at 353 n. 1, and Papachristou v. City of Jacksonville, 405 U.S. 156, 92 S.Ct. 839, 31 L.Ed.2d 110 (1972), in which the Court invalidated a Florida vagrancy statute that criminalized the practice of “wandering or strolling around from place to place without any lawful purpose or object.” Id. at 158 n. 1. But see United States v. Bee, 162 F.3d 1232, 1235-36 (9th Cir.1998) (<HOLDING>); Wiemerslage v. Maine Township High, 29 F.3d

A: holding to be constitutional a condition of supervised release that required that the offender not loiter within 100 feet of school yards parks playgrounds arcades or other places primarily used by children under the age of 18
B: holding that term of supervised release was not automatically terminated when defendant was deported from united states and thus defendants subsequent commission of another offense illegal reentry after deportation prior to expiration of term of supervised release violated condition of supervised release that defendant commit no new offenses
C: holding that invitederror doctrine precludes defendant from challenging sentence of supervised release where defendant requested sentence of supervised release
D: holding that further supervised release may be ordered as a sentence for violation of supervised release
A.