Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
Conduct for United States Judges, Canon 3(A)(3); Judicial Council Order at 2. Judge McBryde does not, so far as we can determine, ever challenge this basic notion anymore than the plaintiff in Lyons claimed a right to engage in the sort of conduct that (he said) commonly led to police use of chokeholds. Indeed at oral argument counsel for Judge McBryde specifically acknowledged that at least some of the conduct “could be considered inappropriate.” See Oral Arg. Tr. at 80-81. With this decision’s confirmation of the Judicial Council’s authority to sanction Judge McBryde for consistent failure to adhere to this norm, we think the risk of recurrence fairly slight. We recognize that docket limitations can be a very serious matter. See Wozniak v. Conry, 236 F.3d 888, 890 (7th Cir.2001) . But here the two restrictions on Judge
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that presumption that respondent exercised undue influence by preparing will that left all of the decedents property to him was amply rebutted by evidence that decedent had made an earlier will ineffective because not witnessed leaving all her property to him and had written him a letter stating that she was leaving all her property to him
B. holding that plaintiffs tenured public employment is not a fundamental property interest entitled to substantive due process protection  thereby joining the great majority of courts of appeals that have addressed this issue and citing cases
C. holding a tenured state employee has a property right to continued employment and must be accorded due process before serious disciplinary sanctions
D. holding that the defendants property interest requires a preseizure hearing
E. holding that depriving a tenured professor of all teaching and research responsibilities affected a property interest sufficiently to entitle him to some kind of a hearing
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.