Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
submit that he would not have pled to § 924 had he known of the term. He bases his claim strictly on a procedural rule violation which he cannot do under § 2255. Even if the Court’s error is a proper subject of collateral relief, the error did not affect Mr. Cooke’s substantial rights. The Presentence Investigation Report noted the mandatory term of supervised release; in addition, the Court informed Mr. Cooke of the mandatory term at his sentencing hearing. Mr. Cooke failed to object to that information either in the report or at sentencing. Mr. Cooke’s own conduct, or lack thereof, proves that his substantial rights were not affected by the Court’s error. See United States v. Carey, 884 F.2d 547 (11th Cir.1989), cert. denied, 494 U.S. 1067, 110 S.Ct. 1786, 108 L.Ed.2d 787 (S.Ct.1990) . Since Mr. Cooke’s substantial rights were not
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding term of supervised release tolled while defendant was in state custody
B. holding that a completed term of confinement did not render a challenge to the reasonableness of a sentence moot where defendant could receive a reduced term of supervised release
C. holding the district courts revocation of defendants term of supervised release did not end the courts jurisdiction over defendants release
D. holding that where trial court did not inform defendant of supervised release term during plea colloquy but did advise defendant of term in presentence report and at sentencing defendants sentence stands
E. 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
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.