Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
of mandatoiy minimum sentences in this limited context.”) (footnote omitted); Shendur v. United States, 874 F.Supp. 85, 86 (S.D.N.Y.1995) ("[Section] 3553(f) reflects a congressional decision that mandatoiy minimum sentences no longer be applied mechanically.”). 2 . See also United States Sentencing Commission, Guidelines Manual, § 5C1.2 (Nov.1995) (incorporating § 3553(f) verbatim). - 3 . The district court nevertheless appears to have imposed such a requirement, stating that "there was not full compliance [with § 3553(f) ], for the reason that I think it was incumbent upon [Ivester] to initiate the full confession of activities to the Government at an early time, and I cannot find that he has done that.” 4 . Contra United States v. Rodriguez, 60 F.3d 193, 196 (5th Cir.1995) . 5 . Cf. USSG § 3E1.1, decreasing the
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding a juveniles request to speak to a probation officer is not a per se invocation of fifth amendment rights
B. holding that defendants lies to probation officer preparing presentence report fall within  1001b exception if probation officer must include particular statement in report
C. holding that probation is not a sentence
D. holding that a condition of supervised release that requires a defendant to report to his probation officer upon reentry to the united states does not violate the defendants fifth amendment right against selfincrimination
E. holding that the defendants statements to the probation officer were insufficient to satisfy the safety valves fifth requirement the probation officer is for purposes of  5c12 not the government
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.