Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
Armstrong v. Manzo, 380 U.S. 545, 552 (1965)). See State ex rel. McMillian v. Dickey, 132 Wis. 2d 266, 285-86 392 N.W.2d 453 (Ct. App. 1986) (in context of probation revocation, "[d]ue process is satisfied when an opportunity is accorded to be heard in a court at a meaningful time and in a meaningful manner"). 38 See State v. Beyer, 2001 WI App 167, 247 Wis. 2d 13, 633 N.W.2d 627 (Beyer's appeal regarding delay in holding the probable cause hearing for his initial commitment); cf. State ex rel. Jones v. Div. of Hearings & Appeals, 195 Wis. 2d 669, 674, 536 N.W.2d 213 (Ct. App. 1995) ("Due process requires that Jones have a parole revocation hearing within a reasonable time ... and prevents ... indefinite detention. . . ."). 39 Post, 197 Wis. 2d at 326; cf. Watts, 122 Wis. 2d at 72 . 40 Joint Anti-Fascist Refugee Comm. v.
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that placement of a contractual limitations period in a section entitled claims was reasonable
B. recognizing that parents seeking an alternative placement may not be subject to the same mainstreaming requirements as a school board but concluding that the ideas mainstreaming requirement remains a consideration that bears upon a parents choice of an alternative placement and may be considered by the hearing officer in determining whether the placement was appropriate
C. holding that protective placement statute unconstitutionally deprived individuals of an automatic periodic reexamination of the need for continued protective placement
D. holding that personal jurisdiction can be premised on the placement of a product into the stream of commerce
E. holding that a private alternative placement need not meet the criteria of a fape
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.