Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
against Detectives Murphy, Kierse and O’Connell, since, according to the facts set forth above and admitted by Mr. Hickombottom, they were not involved in the interrogation or processing after Hickombottom’s arrest. McGuire and Tansey, however, are left with Hickombottom’s remaining claims. The court will address each in turn. First, Mr. Hickombottom claims that the defendants violated his Fourth Amendment right to a prompt hearing by delaying his appearance before a magistrate. The defendants did question Hickombottom for about eleven hours after his arrest, but had nothing to do with him after that time. Eleven hours is not an unreasonable period in which to delay an appearance before a magistrate. See County of Riverside v. McLaughlin, — U.S. —, 111 S.Ct. 1661, 114 L.Ed.2d 49 (1991) . Whatev er happened afterward is not, or at
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that a sentence within a properly calculated guidelines range is presumptively reasonable
B. holding that belowguidelines sentence is presumptively reasonable
C. holding that the defendants sentence was within the guidelines range and therefore presumptively reasonable
D. holding a sentence within the advisory guidelines range is presumptively reasonable
E. holding that period of up to fortyeight hours between arrest and initial appearance before judicial officer is presumptively reasonable
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.