With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". the United States Employees’ Compensation Commission to make initial fact-finding, but requiring substantial oversight by Article III judges, who must decide "fundamental or jurisdictional facts” de novo). 5 . Supreme Court's precedent, see, e.g. Baldwin v. New York, 399 U.S. 66, 68 & n. 5, 90 S.Ct. 1886, 26 L.Ed.2d 437 (1970), instructs that persons accused of petty offenses, not considered "crimes” at common law, have no due process right to be tried by a jury of their peers. On that point, I concur. 6 . Well-developed non-delegation caselaw has been applied to the distinctive Article III role of our federal magistracy over half a dozen times by the Supreme Court, see, e.g., supra note 4, as well as by our court. See, e.g., United States v. Johnston, 258 F.3d 361 (5th Cir.2001) (<HOLDING>); Hill v. City of Seven Points, 230 F.3d 167

A: holding that a district court judgment is not a final judgment appealable by the defendant unless it includes the final adjudication and the final sentence
B: holding that a consensual delegation of the final judgment in a federal prison ers motion to vacate conviction or sentence to a magistrate judge violated the constitution
C: holding that district courts delegation of voir dire to magistrate judge is inconsistent with 28 usc  636b3 where defendant does not consent
D: holding that absent a timely postjudgment motion the trial court has no jurisdiction to alter amend or vacate a final judgment
B.