With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". 16 . See docket entry no. 18. 17 . See docket entry no. 22. 18 . See Plaintiffs Answers to the Court’s Questionnaire, filed April 29, 1997, docket entry no. 23, at p. 22A. 19 . See docket .entry no. 29. 20 . See docket entry no. 31. 21 . See docket entry no. 30. 22 . See docket entry no. 33. 23 . See docket entry no. 34. 24 . See docket entry no. 35. 25 . See docket entry nos. 38-42. 26 . See docket entry no. 44. 27 . See docket entry no. 45. 28 . See docket entry no. 43. 29 . See docket entry no. 36. The Magistrate Judge based her action upon new information that indicated the plaintiff had previously filed not less than four lawsuits or appeals that had been dismissed as frivolous and held that the Fifth Circuit’s opinion in Adepegba v. Hammons, 103 F.3d 383, 384-87 (5th Cir.1996), (<HOLDING>), mandated that plaintiff’s request for leave

A: holding that the plras three strikes provision applied to an appeal pending prior to the effective date of the plra and authorized denial of in forma pauperis status based on lawsuits and appeals dismissed as frivolous prior to the effective date of the plra
B: holding with respect to another part of the plra that the court must determine the prisoners status on the date the suit or appeal is brought rather than at some other time
C: holding that for purposes of counting strikes under  1915g it is irrelevant whether the strikes occurred prior to or after the effective date of the aedpa
D: holding that the financial responsibility provisions of the plra require a prisoner seeking leave to proceed in forma pauperis to file an affidavit listing his assets and to submit a certified copy of his inmate trust fund account statement or an institutional equivalent reflecting the sixmonth period immediately preceding the filing of the complaint even with regard to a case in which in forma pauperis status was granted prior to the effective date of the plra ie april 26 1996
A.