Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
argues that, even if he was delivered to the State of California under Article 14, UCMJ, the issuance of a military discharge certificate (Form DD-214) while he was still in civilian custody vitiated the article, thereby terminating military jurisdiction over him. The cases cited by the petitioner in support of his argument are inapposite. They address the issue of jurisdiction in the context of an accused awaiting trial on pending charges before a court-martial. In this case, jurisdiction over the petitioner had already attached before issuance of his dishonorable discharge certificate; it continues through sentence and punishment. Rule for Courts-Martial 202(c)(1), Manual for Courts-Martial, United States (1995 ed.). See also Coleman v. Tennessee, 97 U.S. 509, 24 L.Ed. 1118 (1878). The issuance of the discharge certificate
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that the carrying out of an execution after the first execution attempt had failed did not amount to cruel and unusual punishment
B. holding that an attack on the computation and execution of a sentence must come in the form of a  2241 petition
C. holding that principle of continuing jurisdiction permitted execution of military sentence despite lapse of many years and appellants severance of all connection with the military
D. holding that  2255 is unavailable to attack execution of sentence
E. holding that a sentence structured with three years incarceration suspended and eight years of sex offender probation was a true split sentence
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.