Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
attack. Rule 5-802(A). Being denied the right to vote is not part of a defendant’s felony conviction and sentence. It is simply a collateral consequence of that conviction and sentence. See N.M. Const. art. VII, § 1; NMSA 1978, § 31-13-1(A) (2005). Moreover, being denied the right to vote, even if the deprivation is wrongful, does not subject a person to custody or restraint. Cummings is not alleging that his underlying conviction and sentence is illegal or that he is being denied a right that would hasten his release from custody, but only that the district court made a clerical error, which wrongly denied him the right to vote. Relief for such an error cannot be had by way of a writ of habeas corpus. Cf. Canfield v. Bradshaw, No. 3:05 CV 2343, 2007 WL 397019, at *6 (N.D.Ohio 2007) . Therefore, we dismiss this ease and affirm
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that because the real id act created a remedy as broad in scope as a habeas petition the act is an adequate substitute for habeas corpus
B. holding that active jurisdiction arose when the petitioner was detained for purposes of habeas corpus when the petition was filed
C. holding that a petition for review is an adequate substitute for habeas corpus
D. holding that a habeas corpus petitioner who did not raise an ineffective assistance claim in his first state habeas petition satisfied the cause prong of the cause and prejudice test when counsel on the first state habeas petition was also trial counsel whose performance was allegedly inadequate
E. holding that a habeas corpus petition was not a valid avenue for seeking a determination that the petitioner was erroneously classified as a sexual predator
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.