Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
3583(e)(2).” Id; at 712, 120 S.Ct. 1795 (emphasis added). In short, by thus recognizing the possibility for both extension and revocation, the Supreme Court did not construe the numbered subsections of § 3583(e) as mutually exclusive. Harris characterizes this part of Johnson as dictum and emphasizes that Justices Kennedy and Thomas objected to this language in brief concurrences. See id. at 713-15, 120 S.Ct. 1795 (Kennedy, J., concurring); id. at 715, 120 S.Ct. 1795 (Thomas, J., concurring). The observation, however, only underscores that a six-justice majority (excluding Justice Scalia, who dissented from this aspect of the decision, see id. at 715-27, 120 S.Ct. 1795 (Scalia, J., dissenting)) deliberately chose to retain it. Thus, even if the statement is fairly charact 2d Cir. 2009) ; see also id. at 624 n.6 (rejecting double
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. 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
B. holding the district courts revocation of defendants term of supervised release did not end the courts jurisdiction over defendants release
C. holding that even in the absence of a new violation district court may extend supervised release after prior revocation
D. holding that further supervised release may be ordered as a sentence for violation of supervised release
E. holding that reasonableness review applies to a sentence imposed upon a revocation of supervised release
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.