With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". attorney fees under § 1927. Therefore, § 1927 cannot serve as the basis of the $290,262 attorney fee award in this case. b. Rule 11 Matta filed his original petition on September 4, 1992, prior to the amendment of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11, that was effective on December 1,1993. The case was removed and Matta filed his motion to remand prior to the amendment as well. The case remained on the district court’s docket until its dismissal on March 31, 1995. The court did not identify, the parties do not assert and we cannot find any action taken by Matta after the December 1,1993 amendment that might serve as the predicate for the sanctions imposed. We therefore apply the pre-1993 version of Rule 11. Childs v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 29 F.3d 1018, 1023 n. 17 (5th Cir.l994)(<HOLDING>) The former version of Rule 11 provides in

A: holding that a motion for rule 11 sanctions is dispositive
B: holding that because conduct at issue occurred prior to december 1 1993 amended rule 11 was not applied
C: recognizing that sdcl  1993 was amended effective july 1 2006
D: holding that a defendant who fails to raise rule 11 error at trial has the burden to satisfy the plainerror rule
B.