Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
alleged interest created by the State rises to the level of ‘property,’ thereby securing the protections of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments.”). Significantly, § 42-56-22, like § 42-56-21, vests Wall with total discretion over whether Young may work at all, by making the labor of prisoners subject to the “discretion of the director” and contingent upon receipt of the “express consent of the director.” Such discretion evidences a lack of intent to provide prisoners with a protected property interest. See, e.g., Jennings v. Lombardi, 70 F.3d 994, 996 (8th Cir.1995) (reasoning that “[wjhere the statute or policy ... grants to the decisionmaker discretionary authority in implementing it, a protected property interest is not created”); cf. Bishop v. State, 667 A.2d 275, 277-78 (R.I.1995) . Moreover, under Rhode Island law, a
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that where the defendant challenges the use of documents purporting to establish the washington classification of an outofstate conviction the state must present additional evidence of the proper classification so as to carry its burden of proving the defendants criminal history by a preponderance of the evidence
B. holding that a prisoner has no constitutionallybased liberty interest in a particular prison classification  because an inmate is not entitled to a particular degree of liberty in prison
C. holding that prisoner had no constitutionallyprotected liberty interest in prisoninmate classification system process where director of department of corrections retained unfettered discretion in classification and housing of prisoners
D. holding that a statecreated liberty interest in ones classification may exist where classification imposes atypical and significant hardship
E. holding that inmates have no constitutionallyprotected liberty interest in access to grievance procedure
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.