With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". (W.D.Mo. Sept. 14, 1999) (same); Greer v. Allstate Ins. Co., No. 97-1138 (W.D.Mo. Sept. 14, 1999) (same); McClain v. Shelter General Ins. Co., No. 97-1139 (W.D.Mo. Sept. 14, 1999) (same); McClain v. American Economy Ins. Co., No. 97-1019 (W.D.Mo. Sept. 14, 1999) (same); Canady v. Federal Ins. Co., No. 97-1141 (W.D.Mo. Sept. 14, 1999) (same); Canady v. Farm Bureau Town & Country Ins. Co., No. 97-1121 (W.D.Mo. Sept. 14, 1999) (same); Hammonds v. Prudential Property & Cas. Co., No. 97-1016 (W.D.Mo. Sept. 14, 1999) (same). 6 . Appellants contend that the All Writs Act does not provide an independent basis for removal to federal court, relying primarily on precedent from other circuits to support their argument. See, e.g., Pacheco de Perez v. AT & T Co., 139 F.3d 1368, 1379 (11th Cir.1998) (<HOLDING>). However, those cases do not deal with the

A: recognizing the all writs act gives federal courts authority to issue writs of coram nobis to correct fundamental errors in criminal proceedings where the person is no longer in custody
B: holding that the all writs act does not provide an independent basis for supplemental federal jurisdiction in situations where federal jurisdiction is otherwise wholly lacking
C: holding that removal to federal court was proper for claims asserted under all writs act
D: holding that district court had jurisdiction to consider claims under the all writs act
B.