With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Gokhan Bergal appeals the district court’s order denying his motion for an extension of time to appeal the court’s August 6, 2015, order denying his motions for a sentence reduction under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (2012). Bergal did not seek an extension of time until November 13, nearly two months after the expiration of the excusable neglect period. See Fed. R.App. P. 4(b)(1)(A), (4); cf. Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266, 276, 108 S.Ct. 2379, 101 L.Ed.2d 245 (1988) (<HOLDING>). Because the district court was without

A: holding that pro se prisoners 28 usc  2254 application deemed filed for limitation purposes when deposited with prison officials for mailing
B: holding that prisoners notice of appeal is deemed filed on date he delivered it to prison officials for mailing to court
C: holding that prisoners legal materials are deemed filed on the date they are deposited with prison officials for mailing
D: holding that a conviction is deemed final on the date of sentencing when there is no evidence that notice of appeal was filed
B.