With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". that very same period — benefits that had been funded in substantial part by CSXT.”). 5 . In its Response Brief, CSXT notes that Sloas never raised the jury's general verdict in his opposition to its motion to alter or amend the judgment. This apparent waiver argument is misplaced. CSXT, not Sloas, is appealing the district court’s denial of its motion to alter or amend the judgment. An appellee may defend, and this Court may affirm, the district court's judgment on any basis supported by the record. See Blum v. Bacon, 457 U.S. 132, 137 n. 5, 102 S.Ct. 2355, 72 L.Ed.2d 728 (1982) ("It is well accepted ... that ... an appellee may rely upon any matter appearing in the record in support of the judgment below.”); see also Pitt County v. Hotels.com, L.P., 553 F.3d 308, 311 (4th Cir.2009) (<HOLDING>). 6 . It is noteworthy that CSXT has requested

A: recognizing that this court may affirm on any grounds apparent from the record quotation omitted
B: recognizing that this court may affirm on any ground supported by the record even if it differs from the reasoning of the district court
C: recognizing that the court of appeals can affirm a grant on summary judgment on any basis made apparent by the record
D: recognizing this court may affirm for any reason supported by the record
A.