With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". that it authorizes or encourages seriously discriminatory enforcement.” United States v. Williams, 553 U.S. 285, 304, 128 S.Ct. 1830, 170 L.Ed.2d 650 (2008). Plaintiffs here assert broadly that ITAR is unconstitutionally vague becausé “persons of ordinary intelligence” must guess as to whether their speech would fall under its auspices. As an" initial matter, the Court notes at least two circuits have rejected due process challenges to the AECA and ITAR, and upheld criminal convictions for its violation. See Zhen Zhou Wu, 711 F.3d at 13 (rejecting defendants’ argument “that this carefully crafted regulatory scheme — which has remained in place for more than a quarter century — is unconstitutionally vague” as applied to them); United States v. Hsu, 364 F.3d 192, 198 (4th Cir.2004) (<HOLDING>). Plaintiffs neither acknowledge those

A: holding that attorney disciplinary rule was unconstitutionally vague as applied
B: holding statute unconstitutionally vague as applied to mere possession of money on jail premises
C: holding that essentially equivalent is unconstitutionally vague
D: holding the aeca and its implementing regulations not unconstitutionally vague as applied to defendants
D.