With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". MOTION FOR REHEARING PER CURIAM. We withdraw our previous opinion in this cause issued February 28, 2005, and substitute the following therefor. Upon consideration of the petition for writ of certiorari, we determine that petitioner is not entitled to relief on his claims concerning revocation of parole or the imposition of restitution. As to the claim requesting recalculation of petitioner’s presumptive parole release date, the petition is denied because the Commission seeks to use exactly the same number of months for aggravating circumstances as initially used in establishing the presumptive parole release date. See Terry v. Florida Probation and Parole Comm’n, 634 So.2d 228 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994) (<HOLDING>); McClain v. Florida Parole Comm’n, 647 So.2d

A: holding that the parole commission is required to state reasons for its finding that an inmate continues to be a poor candidate for parole release
B: holding that habeas petition challenging the state boards decision to defer his scheduled parole release date was rendered moot by prisoners release from custody on parole and subsequent incarceration for violating his parole
C: holding that an important part of due process in the context of parole revocation is a written statement by the factfinders as to the evidence relied on and reasons for revoking parole
D: holding that during a determination of a new presumptive parole release date after revocation of parole the commission may rely on the same aggravating factors that were considered in the first calculation but that the number of months may not exceed the initial number agreeing with tubb v florida parole commn 580 so2d 616 fla 5th dca 1991
D.