With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". (allowing consideration of “any other aggravating factor for which notice has been given.”). Accordingly, the Court denies Defendant’s motion as it relates to striking the Government’s aggravating factors as duplicative. VI. Whether Hurst v. Florida Requires Reconsideration of Fourth Circuit Precedent. In Hurst v. Florida, the Supreme Court held that Florida’s capital sentencing scheme was unconstitutional because it required a judge, not a jury, “to find each fact necessary to impose a sentence of death.” - U.S. -, 136 S.Ct. 616, 619, 193 L.Ed.2d 504 (2016). Defendant argues that Hurst requires the Court to take “a fresh look” at certain Fourth Circuit precedent. Specifically, Defendant requests that the Court revisit United States v. Runyon, 707 F.3d 475, 515-16 (4th Cir. 2013) (<HOLDING>); as well as United States v. Lighty, 616 F.3d

A: holding that failure to charge that jury must find aggravating factors outweigh mitigating factors beyond a reasonable doubt violates fundamental fairness and requires reversal of death sentence
B: holding that if the imposition of the death penalty depends on the existence of aggravating factors a jury must find those factors beyond a reasonable doubt
C: holding that the penaltyphase juryneed not find that aggravating factors sufficiently outweighed mitigating factors beyond a reasonable doubt
D: holding that the grand jury need not find nonstatutory aggravating factors
C.