Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
I. & N. Dec. at 124 (reasoning that it would be “inconsistent” to interpret Section 1226(c) in a manner that “permits the release of some criminal aliens, yet mandates the detention of others convicted of the same crimes, based on whether there is a delay between their release from criminal custody and their apprehension by [DHS]”). Finally,. the Court’s interpretation of Section 1226(c) is further reinforced by Supreme Court precedent. The Supreme Court has held that “a provision that the Government ‘shall’ act within a specified time, without more, [is not] a jurisdictional limit precluding action later.” Barnhart v. Peabody Coal Co., 537 U.S. 149, 158, 123 S.Ct. 748, 154 L.Ed.2d 653 (2003); see United States v. Montalvo-Murillo, 495 U.S. 711, 110 S.Ct. 2072, 109 L.Ed.2d 720 (1990) ; see also Sylvain v. Attorney General of the
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. recognizing that at a bond hearing there is no limit to the discretionary factors that may be considered  in determining whether to detain an alien pending a decision on  removal
B. holding that the government may detain criminal defendants leading up to trial even if they do not comply with the relevant statutes command that a judicial officer shall hold a bond hearing immediately upon the persons first appearance before the officer
C. holding that an officer  may detain a person in order to determine identity and circumstance when that officer has a reasonable suspicion supported by articulable facts that criminal activity may be afoot
D. holding that period of up to fortyeight hours between arrest and initial appearance before judicial officer is presumptively reasonable
E. holding officer may search vehicle for weapons if officer has reasonable belief based on articulable facts that officer or another may be in danger
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.