With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". CURIAM. In this appeal filed pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), we affirm Pace’s judgments and sentences and note that during the pendency of the appeal a motion to mitigate sentence pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(c) was filed within which Pace makes a cursory claim that he is entitled to additional credit for jail time served. Pace’s motion was summarily denied by the trial court, and is a non-appealable order. See Adams v. State, 487 So.2d 1209 (Fla. 4th DCA 1986)(<HOLDING>). In State v. Mancino, 714 So.2d 429, 433

A: holding that there is no authority for a motion for rehearing of an order disposing of a rule 3800 motion to correct illegal sentence and therefore the motion for rehearing did not postpone rendition of the order so as to make the notice of appeal timely
B: holding that an order denying a motion to correct reduce or modify a sentence under rule 3800 is not appealable
C: holding an order denying a motion for summary judgment is interlocutory and not appealable
D: recognizing that an order denying a motion to modify a family court order where the motion is based on changed factual or legal circumstances is appealable as a special order after final judgment
B.