With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". effluent limitations, but only two are at issue in this action — Outlets 006 and 043. Permit Modification Req. Docs., ECF 13-5 at 4. Outlet 006 discharges into Laurel Branch of Paint Creek, and Outlet 043 discharges to a different Laurel Branch, of Armstrong Creek. Def.s’ Mem. Supp. of Cross-Mot. Summ. J., ECF 63 at 6. 6 . Maple moved to suspend the briefing schedule in this appeal action in light of the pending Fayette County enforcement action filed by the WVDEP. ECF 68-2. The motion was granted. Pis.’ Reply Supp. of Mot. Partial Summ. J., ECF 68 at 22. 7 . Given the duplication of the motions, the Court DENIES as moot Plaintiffs’ first motion for partial summary judgment (ECF 7). 8 . Compare Garcia v. Copenhaver, Bell & Associates, M.D.'s, P.A., 104 F.3d 1256, 1261 (11th Cir.1997) (<HOLDING>). See also Adams v. Bain, 697 F.2d 1213, 1219

A: holding that since district court of appeal properly found that the trial court lacked jurisdiction to rule on a 3850 motion during the pendency of a direct appeal the district court of appeal should have vacated the order rather than affirming on the merits
B: holding that if a motion implicates the merits of a cause of action the district court should find jurisdiction exists and treat the objection as a direct attack on the merits of the plaintiffs case
C: recognizing that the district court did not reach the merits
D: recognizing that sanctions are collateral to the merits of the case and may be considered even after the merits are no longer before the district court
B.