With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". district court concluded, however, that McVeigh had not come close to establishing a reasonable basis to believe that he would be able to satisfy the exceedingly demanding standards applicable to a fraud on the court claim. Without the requisite fraud on the court foundation, the district court concluded that it would not have jurisdiction over McVeigh’s anticipated Rule 60(b) motion. Because § 1651 does not constitute a grant of jurisdiction, but instead merely empowers federal courts to issue all writs necessary or appropriate in aid of respective jurisdiction, and because it would not have jurisdiction over McVeigh’s anticipated Rule 60(b) motion, the district court concluded that it must deny McVeigh’s request for a stay. See Hatch v. Oklahoma, 92 F.3d 1012, 1017 (10th Cir.1996) (<HOLDING>) (citing Barefoot v. Estelle, 463 U.S. 880,

A: holding where movant asserts several grounds in support of its summary judgment motion and the trial court does not specify the grounds on which judgment was granted the reviewing court can affirm the judgment if any of the grounds are meritorious
B: holding that a court may issue injunctive relief only when the movant demonstrates four factors substantial likelihood of success on the merits irreparable harm no substantial injury to the other party and furtherance of the public interest
C: holding that a stay of execution is only appropriate where the movant demonstrates substantial grounds upon which relief might be granted
D: recognizing numerous different grounds which may be relied upon for granting a stay and that in general a stay will be allowed or refused on the particular grounds best fitting the exigencies of the individual case and with a view to doing justice between the parties
C.