Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
Fails v. Jefferson Davis Cnty. Pub. Sch. Bd., 95 So.3d 1223, 1225 (¶ 10) (Miss.2012) (quoting Gartrell v. Gartrell, 936 So.2d 915, 916 (¶ 8) (Miss.2006)). By the time Ducks-worth filed his PCR motion, the Parole Board had acknowledged Ducksworth’s parole eligibility of August 2008, had given him a hearing in October 2009, and had denied him parole. So the circuit court’s consideration of Ducksworth’s claim that his parole-eligibility date was actually August 2008 would be of no practical benefit to Ducksworth. Had he brought the matter to the circuit court’s attention before August 2008, the circuit court could have ordered the MDOC to recalculate Ducks-worth’s parole-eligibility date. But by 2011, any controversy regarding Ducks-worth’s parole-eligibility no longer existed. See id. . ¶ 18. Because Ducksworth’s claim is moot, we
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that the circuit courts have no appellate jurisdiction over a general district courts review of an administrative license suspension in the absence of any statutory authority vesting them with such jurisdiction
B. holding appellate courts have no authority to review actual controversies that have expired
C. holding that district courts do not have appellate jurisdiction over state courts
D. recognizing that appellate courts that have applied rule 16 have afforded wide discretion to district courts applications of that rule
E. holding that there is no due process right to appellate review
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.