Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
of habeas corpus, the Supreme Court noted that a district judge in an extradition proceeding is acting pursuant to special powers and not any part of the judicial power of the United States. Id. at 120, 14 How. 103 (citing to Ferreira, 54 U.S. (13 How.) at 48). Modern courts continue to rely on the concepts expressed in Ferreira and Kaine in determining that 18 U.S.C. § 3184 does not violate the principle of separation of powers. See In re Extradition of Kirby, 106 F.3d 855, 864 n. 11 (9th Cir.1996) (noting that 18 U.S.C. § 3184 does not violate principles of separation of powers because a long line of precedents hold that a district judge acting pursuant to Section 3184 does not exercise any part of the judicial power of the United States); Lo Duca v. U.S., 93 F.3d 1100 (2nd Cir.1996) . There are additional reasons why a court may
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. recognizing that the judicial rewriting of a statute would violate the separation of powers doctrine
B. recognizing separation of powers doctrine
C. recognizing that individual judges rather than the federal courts are subject to 18 usc  3184 that judges are thus functioning as commissioners under  3184 rather than exercising powers under article iii and that the statute thus does not violate the separation of powers doctrine
D. holding ifrp is neither a usurpation of sentencing courts article iii power nor violation of separation of powers doctrine
E. holding that 18 usc  3559c did not violate separation of powers doctrine or ex post facto clause
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.