Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
United States, 480 F.2d 1036, 1039 (5th Cir.1973). In fact, it is impossible for the “the validity of the underlying conviction, and, indeed, of the sentence itself’ to be at issue in a Rule 35(b) proceeding. Id.; see also United States v. White, 251 Fed.Appx. 658, 659 (11th Cir.2007) (“Contrary to White’s assertion, Rule 35(b), by its own terms, provides for a reduction of a sentence, not the vacating of a sentence and a resentencing.”). If the validity of the underlying conviction or sentence cannot be at issue in a Rule 35(b) proceeding, it makes no sense to say that a Rule 35(b) reduction constitutes a genuine “resentencing” that gives rise to a new “judgment” that imprisons the § 2255 movant. See Berman v. United States, 302 U.S. 211, 212-14, 58 S.Ct. 164, 166, 82 L.Ed. 204 (1937) . Instead, a defendant imprisoned by a sentence
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that once a sentence is imposed it is a valid final judgment until it is reversed or vacated
B. holding that a sentence is not imposed until judgment enters for purposes of rule 35c
C. holding that a district court judgment is not a final judgment appealable by the defendant unless it includes the final adjudication and the final sentence
D. recognizing that a criminal prosecution is not complete until a sentence has been imposed
E. holding that it is not
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.