With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". was properly asserted under subsection (6) because, separate from the bad faith issue, he also alleged that the state’s action of seizing his settlement funds was unjust. A motion based upon subsection (6), permitting relief from a judgment for “any other reason” need only be filed “within a reasonable time.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b). “What constitutes a reasonable time is dependent on the particular facts of the case in question and is reviewed for abuse of discretion.” Watkins v. Lundell, 169 F.3d 540, 544 (8th Cir L.Ed.2d 216 (2002); Watkins, 169 F.3d at 544 (expressing “considerable trepidation” about whether a 17-month delay was reasonable, but ultimately finding that the issue was not properly before the court); Nucor Corp. v. Neb. Pub. Power Dist., 999 F.2d 372, 374-75 (8th Cir.1993) (<HOLDING>). No mitigating circumstances exist to render

A: holding a plaintiffs rule 60b3 motion untimely where a three and onehalf month delay had occurred with no explanation as to the reason for the delay
B: holding a delay approaching one year is presumptively unreasonable
C: holding that delay for three and onehalf years was unreasonable under rule 60b6
D: holding a three and onehalf year delay was unreasonable
D.