With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". release. At a revocation hearing held on October 6, 2014, Hendrix admitted to the three charged violations and was sentenced to two years’ imprisonment. Id. Approximately three hours after the hearing concluded, the district court held a second hearing, stating it “neglected to cover the matter of supervision” at the earlier hearing. Id. The court then added a one-year term of supervision to the two-year term of imprisonment it had imposed earlier in the day. Id. Hendrix appealed the imposition of the one-year term of supervision. This court ruled that Rule 35 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure did not give the district court authority to subsequently add a year of supervised release to Hendrix’s two-year term of imprisonment for the supervised release violation. Id. at 817-19 (<HOLDING>). We also examined whether the district court

A: holding that invitederror doctrine precludes defendant from challenging sentence of supervised release where defendant requested sentence of supervised release
B: holding that further supervised release may be ordered as a sentence for violation of supervised release
C: holding that outside of rule 35 there exists no inherent authority for a district court to modify a sentence
D: holding the sentencing hearing formally concluded at 110 pm and rule 35 did not empower the district court at 350 pm to modify mr hendrixs sentence by tacking on an additional year of supervised release
D.