Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
As such, they are deemed to have abandoned this claim on appeal. See Fed. R.App. P. 28(a)(9); Brinkmann v. Dallas County Deputy Sheriff Abner, 813 F.2d 744, 748 (5th Cir.1987) (stating that this court will not raise and discuss legal issues that an appellant has failed to assert). In any event, Plaintiffs’ argument is without merit. It is well-settled that parole is “part of the penalty for the initial offense,” Johnson v. United States, 529 U.S. 694, 700, 120 S.Ct. 1795, 146 L.Ed.2d 727 (2000), and that “once the original sentence has been imposed in a criminal case, further proceedings with respect to that sentence [have not been] subject to Sixth Amendment protections.” United States v. Work, 409 F.3d 484, 491 (1st Cir.2005); United States v. Hinson, 429 F.3d 114, 119 (5th Cir.2005) . V. Plaintiffs also assert a number of due
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that district courts have the authority to order terms of supervised release following reimprisonment
B. holding that further supervised release may be ordered as a sentence for violation of supervised release
C. holding that invitederror doctrine precludes defendant from challenging sentence of supervised release where defendant requested sentence of supervised release
D. holding that term of supervised release was not automatically terminated when defendant was deported from united states and thus defendants subsequent commission of another offense illegal reentry after deportation prior to expiration of term of supervised release violated condition of supervised release that defendant commit no new offenses
E. holding that defendant is not entitled to a jury trial to determine whether terms of supervised release have been violated
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.