Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
the incarceration that results from revocation is a consequence of the underlying crime of conviction. Indeed, New York law provides that time served as a result of revocation must be credited against the original sentence. See id. § 70.40(3) (providing that original sentenc (5th Cir.2011), and United States v. Morales-Alejo, 193 F.3d 1102 (9th Cir.1999), relied on by Bussey, warrant no different conclusion. In Garcia-Rodriguez, the Fifth Circuit ruled that supervision was not tolled during administrative detention pending deportation, see 640 F.3d at 133-34; in Morales-Alejo, the Ninth Circuit reached the same conclusion with re spect to pre-trial detention where the defendant later pleaded guilty, see 193 F.3d at 1105; but see United States v. Goins, 516 F.3d 416, 423 (6th Cir.2006) . The reason for these conclusions is that such
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that pretrial detention credited against ultimate sentence triggers tolling
B. holding that juvenile pretrial detention implicates due process rights
C. holding   2241 is the proper avenue by which to challenge pretrial detention
D. holding that motion challenging pretrial detention was excludable under act
E. holding that a pretrial motion triggers an automatic exclusion under  3161h1f even though no actual delay results
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.