With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". SSA in this regard are similarly unavailing. Virginia Lee’s suggestion that the SSA in some sense intended to undo the settlement agreements in this or other cases by voiding assignments is patently wrong. Even had it attempted to do so, the SSA was not a party to the settlement in this case and was powerless to affect any order of this court. As for the defendant’s contention that section 9706(f)(3) provides convincing support of a legislative intent to override judicially-created doctrines favoring the finality of judgments, I note that even were that a correct interpretation of the statutory language, the Supreme Court has clearly ruled that such attempts by Congress will not be upheld. See Plaut v. Spendthrift Farm, Inc., 514 U.S. 211, 225-26, 115 S.Ct. 1447, 131 L.Ed.2d 328 (1995) (<HOLDING>). IV. Conclusion. Virginia Lee cannot avail

A: holding a congressional act which required courts to reopen certain final judgments as an unconstitutional violation of the separation of powers doctrine
B: holding ifrp is neither a usurpation of sentencing courts article iii power nor violation of separation of powers doctrine
C: recognizing separation of powers doctrine
D: holding rfra is inconsistent with smith and violates the separation of powers doctrine
A.