With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". 28 C.F.R. § 2.7(a); Santiago v. U.S., 889 F.2d 371, 373 (1st Cir.1989). The Parole Commission set a “presumptive release date” for Ellis of October 21, 1989. It subsequently revoked that date, however, because Ellis did not pay the fine. Instead, Ellis asked a federal magistrate to determine that he could not pay the fine because he had no “property [other than exempt property] exceeding $20 in value,” in which case, according to statute, the government must release him. See 18 U.S.C. § 3569 (full text in Appendix). The magistrate, and subsequently the district court, denied Ellis’s request. Ellis now appeals. Ellis argues that the Constitution forbids holding a person in prison solely because he is indigent. See Bearden v. Georgia, 461 U.S. 660, 103 S.Ct. 2064, 76 L.Ed.2d 221 (1983) (<HOLDING>); Tate v. Short, 401 U.S. 395, 91 S.Ct. 668, 28

A: holding that state may not revoke probation for nonpayment of fine where probationer is unable to pay through no fault of his own
B: holding that it is sufficient grounds to revoke a probation if only one condition of the probation is broken
C: holding in a case where the maximum time of imprisonment was extended because an indigent defendant was unable to pay a fine and court costs that a state may not constitutionally imprison beyond the maximum duration fixed by statute a defendant who is financially unable to pay a fine
D: holding that probation cannot be revoked solely for violation of conditions requiring payment without evidence that probationer is able to pay
A.