With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". Appellants Joe Guerra and Raymundo Lujano appeal the Ninth Circuit Bankruptcy Appellate Panel’s (“BAP”) affirmance of the bankru here, we reject Appellants’ contention that the alleged ex parte communication required the bankruptcy judge to recuse himself. See, e.g., Blixseth v. Yellowstone Mountain Club, 742 F.3d 1215, 1219 (9th Cir.2014) (per curiam) (“While ex parte communications are discouraged, they ... don’t necessarily call for recusal.” (citation omitted)). 3. The bankruptcy court did not clearly err in either its “bad faith” determination or its findings concerning Curtis Guerra’s role. See Willms v. Sanderson, 723 F.3d 1094, 1099 (9th Cir.2013) (<HOLDING>). 4. Appellants waived their argument

A: holding that we review factual findings underlying a decision to apply a sentencing enhancement for clear error and give due deference to the district courts application of the guidelines to the facts
B: holding that factual findings in sentencing context are reviewed for clear error
C: holding that we review for clear error the bankruptcy courts factual findings
D: holding that we review a district courts refusal to apply ussg  5c12 for clear error because it is a factual finding
C.