Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
Cir. 1993) (Breyer, C.J.). Other courts of appeals have enumerated comparable requirements. See, e.g., United States v. Sloan, 505 F.3d 685, 697 (7th Cir.2007); United States v. Mandanici, 205 F.3d 519, 524 (2d Cir.2000); United States v. Walgren, 885 F.2d 1417, 1420 (9th Cir.1989). Beyond these generalities, the case law has been uneven. For example, several courts have indicated that something more than the stain of conviction is needed to show continuing collateral consequences. See, e.g., Fleming v. United States, 146 F.3d 88, 90-91 & n. 3 (2d Cir.1998) (per curiam); United States v. Dyer, 136 F.3d 417, 429-30 & n. 33 (5th Cir.1998); Hager, 993 F.2d at 5; United States v. Osser, 864 F.2d 1056, 1059-60 (3d Cir.1988); see also United States v. Keane, 852 F.2d 199, 203 (7th Cir.1988) . Other courts have indicated that continuing
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that defendants have a federal constitutional right to make a collateral attack on a prior conviction only when that conviction was obtained without the assistance of counsel
B. holding that  once the sentence imposed for a conviction has completely expired the collateral consequences of that conviction are not themselves sufficient to render an individual in custody for the purposes of a habeas attack upon it
C. holding that the exception is applied only in exceptional situations 
D. holding that continuing collateral consequences arise only in situations where the disability is unique to a criminal conviction
E. holding the petitioners challenge of his conviction is not rendered moot by the expiration of the underlying sentence because collateral consequences flowing from the conviction give the petitioner a substantial stake in the judgment of conviction which survives the satisfaction of the sentence imposed on him
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.