With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". ORDER Appellant Niraj Chaturvedi (“Cha-turvedi”) appeals from a June 2, 2008 memorandum and order, 2008 WL 2276690, of the district court for the Southern District of New York (Preska, J.) denying his appeal of a November 28, 2007 order of Bankruptcy Judge Prudence C. Beatty approving a settlement agreement pursuant to Chapter 7 of the Bankruptcy Code. We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts, procedural history and issues on appeal. Notwithstanding Chaturvedi’s arguments to the contrary, this appeal is foreclosed by Siemon v. Emigrant Savs. Bank, 421 F.3d 167 (2d Cir.2005) (per curiam), where we held that Fed. R. Bankr.P. 8002(a) is jurisdictional, even for pro se litigants. Id. at 169 (<HOLDING>). Chaturvedi now effectively asks us to excuse

A: holding that rule 56f applies to pro se litigants
B: holding that although pro se litigants are entitled to liberal construction of their pleadings pro se litigants must follow procedural rules
C: holding that a pro se litigants failure to comply with the filing deadlines for a notice of appeal set out in federal rule of bankruptcy procedure 8002 meant that the district court lacked jurisdiction over the litigants appeal
D: holding time for filing notice of appeal under rule 8002 is jurisdictional
C.