Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
bases for finding Campbell unsuitable for parole in 2006 were properly supported by some evidence, bearing some indicia of reliability. See Biggs v. Terhune, 334 F.3d 910, 915-17 (9th Cir.2003) (setting forth due process requirements and upholding denial of parole based solely on gravity of offense and prior misconduct). Campbell’s contention that due process mandates that substantial evidence, rather than “some evidence,” support the parole suitability determination is foreclosed. See id. at 915. We do not reach Campbell’s contention that in 2006 the parole board applied the wrong suitability standards to his case because we conclude that “some evidence” supports the board’s determination under either standard. Cf. Connor v. Estelle, 981 F.2d 1032, 1034 (9th Cir.1992) (per curiam) . Campbell’s remaining contentions are
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding unconstitutional the mandatory application of the federal sentencing guidelines
B. holding apprendi is not implicated by an application of the sentencing guidelines that increases the sentencing range so long as the sentence imposed does not exceed the statutory maximum
C. holding that the application of the determinate sentencing law parolesuitability guidelines to prisoners sentenced under the indeterminate sentencing law does not disadvantage them
D. holding that blakely does not apply to the federal sentencing guidelines
E. holding that the reliability analysis is not heightened by the shift from an unstructured sentencing regime to a more determinate guidelines system
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.