Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
that have a determinate sentencing scheme.” Id. (quoting Foote, 808 P.2d at 735). Accordingly, we hold that a district court does not generally have the authority to order the Board of Pardons to credit an inmate’s sentence with time served as a condition of probation. However, because the establishment of an original parole date is inherently a sentencing function and the Board of Pardons therefore serves as a sentencing entity in our system, id., “the Board [of Pardons], like the courts, is governed by constitutional requirements addressing accuracy and fairness in the decision-making process.” Id. at 911. Thus, while the Board exercises unfettered discretion in determining the length of an inmate’s sentence, its actions must not violate the inmate’s constitutional rights. See id. . Accordingly, we must examine whether the
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that any reliance by the parole board on inadmissible hearsay did not violate due process
B. recognizing in certain contexts  a postjudgment hearing may afford the requisite due process
C. holding that an inmate stated a claim under the due process clause when guards had placed her in a cell with a dangerous inmate
D. holding that board of pardons must afford inmate due process in original parole hearing
E. holding that the parole commission is required to state reasons for its finding that an inmate continues to be a poor candidate for parole release
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.