Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
Former federal prisoner David A. Oh-man appeals pro se the district court’s judgment denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 habeas petition, which challenged the calculation of his good conduct time credits by the Bureau of Prisons (“BOP”). We dismiss this appeal as moot. Ohman contends that he was deprived of good conduct time credits under the BOP’s interpretation of 18 U.S.C. § 3624(b)(1). Because Ohman has been released from BOP custody, we lack the ability to grant habeas remedy for his alleged injury. See Munoz v. Rowland, 104 F.3d 1096, 1097 (9th Cir.1997); see also United States v. Johnson, 529 U.S. 53, 58-60, 120 S.Ct. 1114,146 L.Ed.2d 39 (2000) . Without a live case or controversy, Ohman’s
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that a former inmates supervised release term may not be credited with undisputed excess time in prison
B. holding that a statute requiring a threeyear term of supervised release did not eviscerate the district courts discretion to adjust the term of supervised release pursuant to  3583e
C. holding that further supervised release may be ordered as a sentence for violation of supervised release
D. holding that deportation does not extinguish term of supervised release
E. holding that excess prison time served by a defendant on invalidated criminal convictions cannot be credited to the supervised release period to reduce its length
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.