Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
to release a prisoner rests on a myriad of considerations.... The chance that a finding of misconduct will alter the balance is simply too attenuated to invoke the procedural guarantees of the Due Process Clause.” Id. The Sandin court took pains to point out that the technical rule violation in that ease was not likely to affect the prisoner’s parole prospects. The appellant in the case at hand has argued that the “technical” violation in this case did, in fact, affect his parole prospects — it terminated those prospects. In Syllabus Point 3 of State v. Farmer, 193 W.Va. 84, 454 S.E.2d 378 (1994), we indicated that “ ‘[ejrrors involving deprivation of constitutional rights will be regarded as harmless only if there is no reasonable possibility that the violation cont th Cir.1978) ; In re Shapiro, 122 Cal.Rptr. 768, 14 Cal.3d
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that one minute delay between the initial stop of the defendant and the officers question regarding whether the defendant had any illegal substances and his request to search the defendants car was sufficiently contemporaneous with the issuance of the citation such that there was no appreciable delay and certainly no unreasonable delay
B. holding that defendant was responsible for the delay from the withdrawal of his guilty plea
C. holding that when determining whether a delay in prosecution violates a defendants right to a speedy trial courts must consider the length of the delay the reason for the delay whether the defendant asserted his rights and the resulting prejudice to the defendant
D. holding defendant did not demonstrate that commonwealth failed to act diligently in commencing revocation hearing or that defendant prejudiced by delay
E. holding that no prejudice to the defendant arose from a delay in holding his parole revocation hearing twentyfour hours beyond the ninetyday limit
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.