Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
“require” tracked section 7B1.3(f)’s provision that a revocation sentence “shall be ordered to be served consecutively” to the sentence for the new criminal offense. See USSG § 7B1.3 (1990); see also USSG § 7B1.3 (2011) (same). As noted above, the Guidelines in effect when Head committed the underlying offense included no requirement or presumption of consecutive prison terms upon revocation of supervised release. See USSG ch. 7 (1988). Unconstrained by section 7B1.3(f), the district court had discretion under the 1988 Guidelines and the general guidance offered by 18 U.S.C. §§ 3553(a), 3583(e), and 3584 to impose either a consecutive or concurrent sentence. See United States v. Ayers, 795 F.3d 168, 172 (D.C.Cir.2015); see also United States v. Dees, 467 F.3d 847, 852 (3d Cir.2006) . Reliance on section 7B1.3(f) here created at
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that  3145c authorizes district courts to grant release pending sentencing
B. holding in assault and involun tary manslaughter case that district court has discretion to impose concurrent or consecutive sentences based on finding of whether multiple counts involved the same harm
C. holding that supervised release sentences are normally reviewed for abuse of discretion
D. holding in agreement with fourth fifth seventh eighth ninth and eleventh circuits that courts general sentencing discretion under 18 usc  3584 authorizes district courts revoking supervised release to impose consecutive or concurrent sentences
E. holding that  5g12 did not limit the district courts authority to impose consecutive terms of imprisonment upon revocation of supervised release since the policy statements in chapter 7 governed revocation sentences
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.