Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
For this reason, the DHO’s failure to produce and review the work-crew log was not prejudicial to Mitchell, and the error, if any, was harmless. B. Failure to Provide a Written Statement of Reasons Mitchell’s second claim, that the DHO failed to provide a written statement of the reasons for her finding of guilt, is contradicted by the record. The DHO filled out a form titled “Disciplinary Hearing Report.” (R. at 33.) In a section labeled “Evidence relied on for finding of Guilt,” the DHO explained that she relied on the librarian’s description of the incident and the fact that Mitchell produced no evidence to the contrary. (Id.) We have no difficulty in concluding that this written statement meets the due process requirements announced in Wolff. See, e.g., Mitchell, 80 F.3d at 1445 -, Taylor v. Wallace, 931 F.2d 698, 703 (10th
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that a statement implying that the defendant was guilty of the crime for which he was on trial was inadmissible hearsay
B. holding that police officers have a duty to conduct an investigation into the basis of the witness report
C. holding defendants statement that presentence report was correct did not constitute admission to the nature and cireumstances of the crime reflected in the report
D. holding that an officers hearsay statement was not cumulative to the eyewitnesss testimony where the officers statement provided the only evidence of a possible motive for the shooting and where the officers statement was based on his own observations not the eyewitnesss observations
E. holding that written statement that inmate was found guilty on the basis of officers report satisfied wolff
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.