Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
to the Court of Appeals on direct review) violated ex post facto principles when it retroactively applied the remedial holding of Booker at his sentencing. We hereby reject this claim for the same reasons stated in Vaughn. In short, there was no ex post facto problem with the District Court’s application of the remedial holding of Booker at sentencing because Fairclough had fair warning that his conduct was criminal, that enhancements or upward departures could be applied to his sentence under the Guidelines based on judicial fact-findings, and that he could be sentenced as high as the statutory maximum of ten (10) years. See Vaughn, 430 F.3d at 524. We see no need to adopt a different rule in this context. See United States v. Austin, 432 F.3d 598, 2005 WL 3317773 (5th Cir.2005) ; United States v. Cross, 430 F.3d 406 (7th
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that revocation of medical license does not violate the ex post facto clause
B. holding that the ex post facto clause  has no application to deportation
C. holding that district court did not violate ex post facto clause in sentencing defendant above guidelines maximum where district court assumed guidelines to be advisory prebooker
D. holding that district court did not violate ex post facto clause in applying remedial holding of booker at sentencing
E. holding that use of the guidelines in effect at time of sentencing does not violate ex post facto clause after booker
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.