With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 in federal court arguing that his sentencing enhancement was unconstitutionally imposed because he was found guilty of having obstructed justice by the sentencing judge rather than by a jury. The district court denied this petition, finding it was time-barred. Chee filed a motion with the district court seeking reconsideration or, in the alternative, to appeal the denial of his petition. The district court denied Chee’s motion for reconsideration, treating the motion instead as an appeal of its denial of his § 2255 petition. Because the district court did not issue Chee a COA or state why a certificate should not issue, we deem that Chee’s constructive request for a COA was denied. See United States v. Kennedy, 225 F.3d 1187, 1193 n. 3 (10th Cir.2000) (<HOLDING>). Our granting of a COA is a jurisdictional

A: holding court lost jurisdiction to enter its order after thirty days and the motion was denied by operation of law
B: recognizing that while defendants may freely amend their notice of removal within thirty days of service they may not add new grounds for removal after the thirty day period has expired
C: holding that a coa is deemed denied if the district court does not address its issuance within thirty days
D: holding that the district court acted within its discretion when it denied plaintiffs request for counsel
C.