Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
so requests, the arresting government shall inform his local consular post of his arrest, and he shall be permitted to communicate with the consular officials. Vienna Convention on Consular Relations, Apr. 24, 1963, art. 36, 21 U.S.T. 77, 101. 3 . Although Gordon’s waiver of appellate rights did not encompass the sentence corresponding to his illegal reentry conviction, Gordon fails to demonstrate the district court abused its discretion. See Gall v. United States, - U.S. -, 128 S.Ct. 586, 597, 169 L.Ed.2d 445 (2007). Gordon’s 240-month sentence for this offense was imposed concurrent to the 420-month sentence for the § 846 offense. Therefore, Gordon’s substantial rights were not affected by the 240-month concurrent term. See United States v. Ellis, 326 F.3d 593, 599-600 (4th Cir.2003) ; United States v. Burns, 298 F.3d 523, 544-45
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that sentence exceeding statutory maximum by twenty years did not affect substantial rights because defendant received equal or longer concurrent sentences on other counts
B. holding that santoss concern regarding the evisceration of congresss choice of a low statutory maximum penalty for an underlying offense did not apply where the underlying offenses carried maximum sentences of twenty years and the money laundering offense carried a lower maximum sentence of ten years
C. holding that an apprendi error was harmless where the defendant received a concurrent sentence on another count longer than the statutory maximum applicable to the count affected by the error
D. holding that sentences of five years in prison followed by ten years probation were illegal sentences that exceeded the statutory maximum of five years for a thirddegree felony
E. holding that sentencing error did not affect defendants substantial rights because error did not result in longer term of imprisonment
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.