With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". States v. Hancox, 49 F.3d 223, 224 (6th Cir. 1995). 2 . At the revocation hearing, Johnson's counsel cited the corresponding policy statement in the Sentencing Guidelines, which provides: In the case of a defendant who fails a drug test, the court shall consider whether the availability of appropriate substance abuse programs, or a defendant's current or past participation in such programs, warrants an exception from the requirement of mandatory revocation and imprisonment under 18 U.S.C. §§ 3565(b) and 3583(g). 18 U.S.C. §§ 3563(a), 3583(d). United States Sentencing Guidelines Manual ("U.S.S.G.”) § 7B1.4 applic. note 6 (2000). Given that Johnson violated the terms of his supervised release in 2001, this provision applied. See United States v. Cofield, 233 F.3d 405, 409 (6th Cir.2000) (<HOLDING>), cert. denied, 532 U.S. 952, 121 S.Ct. 1424,

A: holding that term of supervised release was not automatically terminated when defendant was deported from united states and thus defendants subsequent commission of another offense illegal reentry after deportation prior to expiration of term of supervised release violated condition of supervised release that defendant commit no new offenses
B: holding that failure to explain the effect of a term of supervised release was harmless error where term of imprisonment combined with maximum imprisonment for violation of supervised release was still less than statutory maximum
C: holding that invitederror doctrine precludes defendant from challenging sentence of supervised release where defendant requested sentence of supervised release
D: holding that for purposes of revoking supervised release the applicable guidelines are those in effect at the time of the supervised release violations rather than those in effect at the time of initial offense
D.