With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". Department and Planning Commission’s opening brief fails to comply with the requirements set forth in Hawai'i Rules of Appellate Procedure (HRAP) Rule 28(b)(4) (2002), inasmuch as the Planning Department and Planning Commission failed to cite where in the record they objected to the circuit court’s alleged error in their “Statement of Points of Error” section of their opening brief. Indeed, it is well settled that failure to comply with HRAP Rule 28(b)(4) is alone sufficient to affirm the circuit court’s judgment. Kawamata Farms, Inc. v. United Agri Prods., 86 Hawai'i 214, 235, 948 P.2d 1055, 1076 (1997); O’Connor v. Diocese of Honolulu, 77 Hawai'i 383, 385, 885 P.2d 361, 363 (1994); see also Schefke v. Reliable Collection Agency, Ltd., 96 Hawai'i 408, 420, 32 P.3d 52, 64 (2001) (<HOLDING>). This court, however, has consistently adhered

A: recognizing that noncompliance with hrap rule 28b4 offers sufficient grounds for the dismissal of the appeal
B: holding that a prior dismissal on one of  1915gs enumerated grounds counts as a strike even if the dismissal is the subject of an ongoing appeal
C: recognizing that propriety of dismissal without warning for failure to prosecute although abuse of discretion and grounds for appeal was not basis for overturning denial of motion under rule 60b to set aside dismissal
D: recognizing rule
A.