Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
by contrast, the Federal Rules of Evidence are inapplicable, see Fed.R.Evid. 1101(d)(3); Williams v. New York, 337 U.S. 241, 250-51, 69 S.Ct. 1079, 1084-85, 93 L.Ed. 1337 (1949) (endorsing the use of hearsay evidence at sentencing), and hearsay normally may be considered subject only to the modest due process requirement that it bear “some minimal indicium of reliability beyond mere allegation,” United States v. Baylin, 696 F.2d 1030, 1040 (3d Cir.1982); see also 18 U.S.C. § 3661 (“No limitation shall be placed on the information concerning the background, character, and conduct of a person convicted of an offense which a court of the United States may receive and consider for the purpose of imposing an appropriate sentence.”); United States v. Sciarrino, 884 F.2d 95, 97 (3d Cir.) , cert. denied, — U.S. -, 110 S.Ct. 553, 107
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that even in the absence of a sixth amendment violation the imposition of a sentence under the former mandatory guidelines regime rather than under the advisory regime outlined in booker is plain error
B. holding that judicial factfinding at sentencing is permissible  indeed required  under an advisory guidelines regime
C. holding that sentencing under the mandatory guidelines regime creates a presumption of prejudice that the government must rebut with clear and specific evidence that the district court would not have  sentenced the defendant to a lower sentence if it had treated the guidelines as advisory
D. holding that the reliability analysis is not heightened by the shift from an unstructured sentencing regime to a more determinate guidelines system
E. holding that the application of the determinate sentencing law parolesuitability guidelines to prisoners sentenced under the indeterminate sentencing law does not disadvantage them
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.