Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
discretion. See Florida Parole & Probation Comm’n v. Paige, 462 So.2d 817 (Fla.1985). As we observed in Florida Parole Commission v. Brown, 989 So.2d 723 (Fla. 1st DCA 2008), an abuse of discretion may be established in various ways, including a showing that the Commission deviated from the legal requirements imposed upon it, such as the obligation to review the inmate’s complete record and to articulate the basis for its decision. In the petition for writ of mandamus filed in the circuit court, Thomas asserted that the Commission had not complied with rules 23-21.0155 or 23-21.0161, Florida Administrative Code, and failed to articulate the basis for its decision. We conclude that this claim stated a basis for relief. See Alday v. Fla. Parole Comm’n, 58 So.3d 327 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011) . Rule 23-21.0155 provides that when the
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that the parole commission is required to state reasons for its finding that an inmate continues to be a poor candidate for parole release
B. holding that there was no legal right to court review of parole board decision because there is no legal right to release on parole
C. holding that where the capital defendants future dangerousness is at issue and state law prohibits the defendants release on parole due process requires that the sentencing jury be informed that the defendant is parole ineligible
D. holding that an important part of due process in the context of parole revocation is a written statement by the factfinders as to the evidence relied on and reasons for revoking parole
E. holding that habeas petition challenging the state boards decision to defer his scheduled parole release date was rendered moot by prisoners release from custody on parole and subsequent incarceration for violating his parole
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.