Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
review was ordered for February, 2000. At this review, the Board interviewed Appellant and informed him that he had failed to complete his mandatory therapeutic substance abuse program, failed to obtain a favorable recommendation from the Department of Corrections, and, moreover, the Board still did not have an updated INS report. Consequently, the Board denied parole the second time concluding that the fair administration of justice could not be achieved through Appellant’s- release. The Board again reviewed Appellant’s eligibility for parole in February of 2002, but refused to parole him for the same reasons it denied parole in February of 2001. Evidently believing his continued incarceration to be unlawful, Appellant filed a mandamus petition with the Com 2d 502 (Pa.Cmwlth.1998) . Cmwlth. Ct. Order, 4/9/2002. The court,
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that it is well settled that the pennsylvania board of probation and parole has exclusive authority to determine parole when the offender is sentenced to a maximum term of imprisonment of two or more years
B. holding that a right to confrontation exists in parole revocation proceedings
C. holding that parole is not a right in pennsylvania
D. holding defendant does not waive fourth amendment protection by signing parole agreement but the search condition does confirm right of parole officer to conduct reasonable searches within scope of parole mission
E. holding that there was no legal right to court review of parole board decision because there is no legal right to release on parole
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.