With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". and was released around mid-November 2008. See Federal Bureau of Prisons, Inmate Locator, http://www.bop.gov/iloc2/LocateInmate.jsp (last visited Dec. 28, 2008). Furthermore, on September 22, 2008, Mr. Manning sought from this Court a stay of the commencement of his supervised release term, noting that he was "about to be released again to the same probation officer.” No. 08-5057, Doc. 9598259, at 3 (Order of Stay for Supervised Release, dated September 22, 2008). We denied Mr. Manning's request for a stay. If Mr. Manning has in fact been released, as we are inclined to believe under the circumstances outlined above, that portion of his appeal challenging the reasonableness of his sentence is moot. See United States v. Johnson, 529 U.S. 53, 54, 120 S.Ct. 1114, 146 L.Ed.2d 39 (2000) (<HOLDING>); United States v. Ludvigson, 262 Fed. Appx.

A: 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
B: 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
C: holding that further supervised release may be ordered as a sentence for violation of supervised release
D: holding that invitederror doctrine precludes defendant from challenging sentence of supervised release where defendant requested sentence of supervised release
A.