Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
authorized.” As quoted, this language implies that because Vincent’s and Mackey’s decision was “deliberate, considered, or planned,” an inquiry into whether the practice was authorized is irrelevant. This proposition, however, is unsound. First, Piatt’s holding is the far narrower proposition that alleging challenged conduct to be a “matter of consistent policy” is sufficient to withstand attack on Parratt grounds. 773 F.2d at 1034. As alleged, the conduct in Piatt was authorized by state policy, 773 F.2d at 1034; therefore, Parratt does not apply to the conduct, whether deliberate or not. The language quoted by the majority is thus clearly dicta. Even more importantly, the dicta in Piatt is directly contrary to the Supreme Court’s holding in Hudson, 468 U.S. at 533, 104 S.Ct. at 3203 . We should follow the Supreme Court. 2. The
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding parratt does not apply where an officer acts pursuant to established procedures
B. holding that 1 even if some conduct is not actionable as securities fraud that conduct cannot support a civil rico claim if it was also undertaken in connection with the purchase of a security and 2 conduct in maintaining ponzi scheme was conduct undertaken in connection with the purchase or sale of securities
C. holding that parratt does apply to intentional conduct if the conduct is unauthorized
D. holding that uncharged conduct may be considered at sentencing when that conduct is proven by a preponderance of the evidence
E. holding that the ada amendments act does not apply to preamendment conduct
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.