With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". bankruptcy court. In its order approving the sale of the Coffeyville assets to CRLLC, the bankruptcy court found that GAF’s bid did not satisfy the auction and sale bidding procedure requirements. Although GAF asserts that the disqualification of its bid was “unjustified,” GAF does not allege any facts suggesting that the appellees were responsible for the deficiencies in its bid. Moreover, GAF appealed neither the sale order nor the denial of its Rule 60(b) motion, both of which found that CRLLC was the only qualified bidder. GAF urges that it has standing because its claim is for fraud on the court, and traditional standing analysis does not apply to claims for fraud on the court. See Universal Oil Prods. Co. v. Root Ref. Co., 328 U.S. 575, 580, 66 S.Ct. 1176, 90 L.Ed. 1447 (1946) (<HOLDING>). However, GAF’s complaint does not state a

A: recognizing inherent power of courts of appeals
B: holding that federal courts have inherent power to investigate whether a judgment was obtained by fraud
C: recognizing courts inherent power to issue subpoenas
D: recognizing the inherent power of the courts to issue warrants
B.