With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". Commission’s denial of credit for the time an inmate spent on conditional release violates federal law, we have rejected this argument in the context of federal parole. Addressing federal parole violations, the former Fifth Circuit rejected the double jeopardy argument, similar to the one pressed here, that when parole is revoked upon violation, the time spent on parole should count towards time served on a prisoner’s sentence. See Clark v. Blackwell, 374 F.2d 952, 953 (5th Cir.1967). The former Fifth Circuit explained that in federal parole, the “time spent on parole shall not diminish the sentence where a prisoner has violated his parole and is required to serve the remainder of his sentence.” Clark, 374 F.2d at 953; see also Thompson v. Cockrell, 263 F.3d 423, 426 (5th Cir.2001) (<HOLDING>); cf. Dill v. Holt, 371 F.3d 1301, 1303 (11th

A: 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
B: holding that further supervised release may be ordered as a sentence for violation of supervised release
C: holding that due process clause does not require a federal prisoner to receive credit for time spent on supervised release if release is revoked
D: holding that invitederror doctrine precludes defendant from challenging sentence of supervised release where defendant requested sentence of supervised release
C.