Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
(1997) (“An inmate shall be released on parole by the written order of the parole board if the board determines . . . there is a reasonable probability that the inmate can be released without detriment to the community or to the inmate; and . . . the inmate is willing and capable of fulfilling the obligations of a law-abiding citizen.”). 17 Without making a determinative decision, we note that the practical application of § 204b to plaintiff presents an instructive comparison to the case at bar. Unlike the current case, if § 204b’s seventy-percent rule had been applied to plaintiff, the statute’s plain terms would have retroactively increased the length of plaintiffs minimum sentence. This, presumably, would violate the Ex Post Facto Clause. Peugh, 569 U.S. at 544, 133 S. Ct. at 2084 ; see also Puckett v. Abels, 684 So. 2d 671,
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that the application of the guidelines in effect at sentencing rather than at the time of defendants conduct does not violate the ex post facto clause even if the current guidelines suggest a harsher sentence because the guidelines are only advisory not binding
B. holding that retroactive application of advisory sentencing guidelines violated ex post facto clause because guidelines increased minimum sentencing range
C. holding that district court did not violate ex post facto clause in sentencing defendant above guidelines maximum where district court assumed guidelines to be advisory prebooker
D. holding that use of the guidelines in effect at time of sentencing does not violate ex post facto clause after booker
E. holding that parole guidelines are subject to the ex post facto clause
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.