With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". 1128 (10th Cir. 2011). But Mr. Flanders has not argued plain error. As a result, we decline to consider whether use of the current statutory version would constitute plain error. See id. at 1130-31 (stating that the failure to argue for plain error "surely marks the end of the road” for an argument that had been forfeited). 4 . The Rooker-Feldman doctrine applies only if the state-court proceedings became final before the federal proceedings began. Exxon Mobil Corp., 544 U.S. at 284, 125 S.Ct. 1517. The bankruptcy court concluded that because the Colorado Supreme Court had denied review on the issues relevan & Carruth LLP (In re Pavelich), 229 B.R. 777, 783-84 (9th Cir. BAP 1999) (substantially the same); cf. Ellis v. Consol. Diesel Elec. Corp., 894 F.2d 371, 312 (10th Cir. 1990) (<HOLDING>). Other courts, however, have declined to

A: holding judgment in violation of automatic stay void
B: holding that an action taken in violation of the automatic stay is void ab initio
C: holding knowledge of the bankruptcy petition and action taken thereafter was sufficient to find a willful violation of the stay
D: recognizing that any action taken in violation of the automatic bankruptcy stay is void and without effect
D.