Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
court considers constitutionally impermissible factors in imposing a sentence. Nawaz v. State, 28 So.3d 122, 124 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010). Reliance on constitutionally impermissible factors is a violation of a defendant’s due process rights. See Ritter v. State, 885 So.2d 413, 414 (Fla. 1st DCA 2004); see also Holton v. State, 573 So.2d 284, 292 (Fla.1990). Examples of factors that are constitutionally impermissible or totally irrelevant to the sentencing process include the race, religion or political affiliation of the defendant. See Zant v. Stephens, 462 U.S. 862, 885, 103 S.Ct. 2733, 77 L.Ed.2d 235 (1983). “[S]imilar principles apply when a judge impermissibly takes his own religious characteristics into account in sentencing.” United States v. Bakker, 925 F.2d 728, 740 (4th Cir.1991) ; see also Singleton v. State, 783 So.2d 970,
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. recognizing that sentencing judges have the discretion to reject any sentencing guideline but no judge is required to do so
B. holding that judge violated due process by stating at sentencing that those of us who do have a religion are ridiculed as being saps from moneygrubbing preachers or priests
C. holding that it violated due process for one adjudicator to act as grand jury and judge for same defendants
D. holding that because restitution hearings are a part of sentencing and have nothing to do with a defendants guilt or innocence the rules of evidence do not apply
E. holding that a defendant was not entitled to a relief under section 2255 when he asserted that the sentencing judge who was not the trial judge was influenced by the sentence imposed by the trial judge on a codefendant
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.