With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". also denied Moncier’s various motions to amend, strike, and supplement his complaint and motion for temporary injunctive relief. Id. at 864, *8. The court then directed the clerk to close Moncier’s case in its entirety. Id. Moncier timely filed a notice of appeal challenging the dismissal of his complaint and an amended notice of appeal challenging the denial of his motion for a temporary injunction. Moncier did not, however, appeal the denial of his motions to amend his other filings. Accordingly, we need not address the claims he presented in those tendered amendments. See Fed. R.App. P. 3(c)(1)(B) (requiring notices of appeal to “designate the judgment, order, or part thereof being appealed”); Torres v. Oakland Scavenger Co., 487 U.S. 312, 315, 108 S.Ct. 2405, 101 L.Ed.2d 285 (1988) (<HOLDING>). II. ANALYSIS We review de novo the dismissal

A: holding that compliance with rule 3 is both a mandatory and jurisdictional prerequisite to appeal internal quotation marks omitted
B: holding that a coa is a jurisdictional prerequisite
C: holding that an appeal is not moot so long as the appellate court can fashion relief that is both effective and equitable internal quotation marks omitted alteration in original
D: holding that exhaustion is mandatory and jurisdictional
A.