Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
(sanctions imposed upon revocation are to be “served consecutively to any other term of imprisonment imposed for any criminal conduct that is the basis of the revocation”); U.S.S.G. § 5G1.3(e) (p.s.) (recognizing that a sentence for an instant offense should “run consecutively to the prior undischarged term of imprisonment to the extent necessary to achieve a reasonable incremental punishment for the instant offense”). Thus, the policy favoring imposition of consecutive sentences in cases of violation of release, as expressed in Chapters 5 and 7 of the Sentencing Guidelines, governs. A contrary result illogically would rest the priority of consecutive sentences upon the order in which the sentences were imposed. Accord United States v. Glasener, 981 F.2d 973, 975-76 (8th Cir.1992) . AFFIRMED. 1 . The district court added three
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that an identical or nearly identical limitation of liability clause was valid and enforceable under georgia law
B. holding that an order was final for these identical reasons
C. holding in nearly identical situation that the mere order in which the sentences were imposed does not alter the result that is required
D. recognizing that the duty arises not from the terms of the insurance contract but from an obligation imposed in law as a result of the special relationship
E. holding that  10113aa does not alter the requirement that the property in question be real property in order for the antimodification provision to apply
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.