Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
the conditions of supervision which he has been doing since he was released on bond. (Tr. 11/26/13, pp. 17-18). Having heard the argument, the court then queried the government about its “position on home confinement here.” Id. p. 18. The government responded by saying that it was asking for a sentence of imprisonment within the range. Id. As for the § 3553 sentencing factors, circuits are split as to whether a district court need consider § 3553 factors when, as here, the revocation is mandatory under § 3583. Compare, U.S. v. Thornhill, 759 F.3d 299, 311 (3d Cir.2014) (stating that, “Meaningful consideration of the § 3553(a) factors is also required in revocation proceedings.”) with U.S. v. Garza, 706 F.3d 655, 658 (5th Cir.2013); U.S. v. Giddings, 37 F.3d 1091, 1095 (5th Cir.1994) . We need not determine where our Circuit
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that the statute is mandatory
B. holding that a sentencing court is required by 18 usc  3583g to revoke the defendants term of supervised release  unless defendant could come under the exception in 18 usc  3583d
C. holding that when revocation  is mandatory under 18 usc  3583g the statute does not require consideration of  3553a factors
D. holding that a district courts failure to consider the 18 usc  3553a factors was plain error relying on gall
E. holding that the district courts sentencing decision was not constrained by the factors specifically enunciated in 18 usc  3583e where revocation was mandated by  3583g
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.