With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". improper integration into the Seniority Integration Agreement is untimely, O’Donnell v. Vencor, Inc., 465 F.3d 1063, 1066 (9th Cir.2006), and claim-precluded, Akootchook v. United States, 271 F.3d 1160, 1164 (9th Cir.2001). Parker raises new issues for the first time on appeal, in both her opening brief and her reply brief. Because the exceptional circumstances allowing consideration of issues raised for the first time on appeal do not appear in this case, the Court does not address them. El Paso City of Tex. v. Am. W. Airlines, Inc. (In re Am. W. Airlines, Inc.), 217 F.3d 1161, 1165 (9th Cir.2000). For similar reasons, the Court will not consider Parker’s new evidentiary exhibit, filed with her opening brief. See Kirshner v. Uniden Corp. of Am., 842 F.2d 1074, 1077 (9th Cir.1988) (<HOLDING>). The district court did not err in concluding

A: holding that evidence not submitted to the district court cannot be part of the record on appeal
B: holding that additional records submitted to the appeals council are part of the administrative record for judicial review
C: holding appeal of termination is limited to information that is part of the record
D: holding that issues not raised before the district court cannot be asserted for the first time on appeal
A.