Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
Anacleto Pacheco-Medina filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in federal district court, seeking relief from his Oregon state court conviction for delivery of a controlled substance. The district court denied relief because Pacheco-Medina was not in custody at the time he filed his petition, as required by 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The facts are known to the parties and will not be repeated herein except as necessary. I Pacheco-Medina’s suspended sentence completely expired in January 2000, and he filed his habeas petition in federal district court in November 2001. Accordingly, Pacheco-Medina was not in custody under the conviction and sentence he now seeks to attack. See Maleng v. Cook, 490 U.S. 488, 490-91, 109 S.Ct. 1923, 104 L.Ed.2d 540 (1989) . The fact he is now subject to an INS
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. recognizing that federal habeas statutes require petitioner to be in custody when petition filed
B. holding that  once the sentence imposed for a conviction has completely expired the collateral consequences of that conviction are not themselves sufficient to render an individual in custody for the purposes of a habeas attack upon it
C. holding that a habeas petitioner must be in custody under the conviction or sentence under attack at the time his petition is filed
D. holding that petitioner could not collaterally attack his state court conviction on a petition for review of an agency decision
E. holding that a california habeas petition is timely if filed within a reasonable time
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.