With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". DAVID M. EBEL, Circuit Judge. This matter is before the court on Appellee’s petition for rehearing with suggestion for rehearing en banc. The petition for panel rehearing is granted solely to clarify on pages 13, 15, and 18 that the agents were executing a valid search warrant at the time the lawfully seized money allegedly was stolen. In all other respects, panel rehearing is denied. The panel’s original ord r summary judgment, which was based in part on qualified immunity. In this interlocutory appeal, the agents appeal the district court’s denial of qualified immunity. We first conclude that we have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 to consider the legal questions presented in this appeal. See Thomas v. Durastanti, 607 F.3d 655, 658-59, 662 (10th Cir.2010) (<HOLDING>). Also, we conclude that there was no clearly

A: holding that the court lacked jurisdiction over statelaw tort claims on an interlocutory appeal from a denial of qualified immunity
B: recognizing that the court declined to craft an exception to settled rules of interlocutory appellate jurisdiction and rejected the argument that the policies behind the qualified immunity defense justify interlocutory appeals on questions of evidentiary sufficiency
C: recognizing that this court considers only legal questions when considering interlocutory appeal from denial of qualified immunity
D: holding that an interlocutory appeal lies from a denial of summary judgment on a qualified immunity claim
C.