With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". v. Washington, 350 F.3d 925, 929 (9th Cir.2003) ("[W]e review only issues which are argued specifically and distinctly in a party’s opening brief.”) (citation omitted). 3 . Thirty days from January 2, 2003, the date the district court faxed the district court’s order to Ford’s attorney, was February 1, 2003, a Saturday. February 3, the date Ford filed the notice of appeal, was a Monday. 4 . No comparable provisions existed prior to these amendments. 6 . There is no dispute that the ruling granting summary judgment is one of the rulings for which a separate document is required under Rule 58. 7 .Prior to the amendments to Rule 58, the lack of a separate document resulted in the appeal period never beginning to run at all. See, e.g., Corrigan v. Bargala, 140 F.3d 815, 819 (9th Cir.1998) (<HOLDING>). Accordingly,’ if the 2001 version of the

A: holding that the time to file an appeal never began to run because the clerk failed to enter a separate judgment as required by rule 58
B: holding the trial court was without authority to dismiss an appeal on the ground that the amount of the judgment required the appellant to file an application for discretionary review
C: holding that where oral loan was silent as to the time of repayment the statute of limitations began to run at the time the contract was made
D: holding that the limitations period begins to run at the time that the parties first enter into the franchise agreement
A.