Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
maximum. The sentences imposed by the district court were below the statutory maximum and within the range prescribed by the Guidelines for the quantity of drugs the court determined to have been involved in the appellants’ crime. Even under pre-Booker law, defendants faced the possibility of sentences anywhere within the applicable statutory range. Id. (internal citation omitted). We therefore found nothing improper in the application of Booker to cases pending on direct review and joined the First, Fifth, Seventh, Ninth, and Eleventh Circuits in so holding. See id. (collecting cases). The instant appeal raises the same issue in a slightly different context. That is, Fairclough claims that the District Court (as 005) (same); United States v. Lata, 415 F.3d 107, 110-13 (1st Cir.2005) . Because Fairclough’s ex post facto argument
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that use of the guidelines in effect at time of sentencing does not violate ex post facto clause after booker
B. holding that retroactive application of advisory sentencing guidelines violated ex post facto clause because guidelines increased minimum sentencing range
C. holding that parole guidelines are subject to the ex post facto clause
D. holding that retroactive application of advisory sentencing guidelines violated ex post facto clause because guidelines created sufficient risk of increased sentencing range
E. holding that district court did not violate ex post facto clause in sentencing defendant above guidelines maximum where district court assumed guidelines to be advisory prebooker
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.