With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". judgment pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. § 1A-1, Rule 60(b)(1) and (6) (1999). Following a hearing on 2 January 2001, the trial court denied this motion pursuant to an order filed on 8 January 2001. Mr. Sellers appeals. On appeal, Mr. Sellers argues that the trial court erred in concluding that his Rule 60(b) motion was not made within a reasonable time; and, he contends that he showed excusable neglect. We hold it dispositive that even if we assume both of those contentions to be true, Mr. Sellers is still not entitled to relief under Rule 60(b) because he failed to demonstrate prima facie evidence of a meritorious defense. See Higgins v. Michael Powell Builders, 132 N.C. App. 720, 515 S.E.2d 17 (1999); see also Wynnewood Corp. v. Soderquist, 27 N.C. App. 611, 219 S.E.2d 787 (1975) (<HOLDING>); Sides v. Reid, 35 N.C. App. 235, 241 S.E.2d

A: holding that a rule 60b6 movant must show the existence of a meritorious prima facie defense
B: holding that the bia may deny a motion to reopen on the ground that the movant has not established prima facie eligibility for the underlying relief sought
C: holding that the states failure to object to a late petition for appeal of a termination order granted by the trial court on the basis of excusable neglect constituted a waiver of the states right to contest excusable neglect on appeal to the court of appeals
D: holding that to obtain relief under rule 60b1 on grounds of excusable neglect the movant must also demonstrate prima facie evidence of a meritorious defense
D.