Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
could not have meant what it unmistakably said.” Id. (quoting Sutherland Statutory Construction § 45:12, at 105-07). In Sherwinr-Williams, we declined to apply the absurd results doctrine, even though the outcome under the plain language of the statute — allowing a retailer to claim a manufacturer’s tax credit — appeared counterintuitive. Id. at 427-28. We emphasized “we will not ignore clear legislative l 8, 331 (2011) (noting defendants convicted of a felony receive sentencing credit for time subjected to electronic and home monitoring pretrial). Most courts have held electronic monitoring and home supervision does not satisfy the “custodial” or related requirements of their state sentencing credit statutes. See, e.g., Matthew v. State, 152 P.3d 469, 473 (Alaska Ct.App.2007) ; Bush v. Arkansas, 338 Ark. 772, 2 S.W.3d 761,
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding electronic home monitoring is not time spent in custody because there is a difference in restrictions between electronic home monitoring and jail
B. holding confinement to home and work through electronic supervision does not equate to custody
C. holding that home confinement may not be credited toward official detention
D. holding that electronic home monitoring constitutes confinement under the sra
E. holding as a matter of law pretrial electronic monitoring and home confinement merits sentencing credit under its statute
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.