With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". In reviewing the latter ground for the enhancement’s application, we must consider whether the unnecessary expenditure of substantial government or court resources in the bankruptcy context may trigger section 2J1.3(b)(2)’s enhancement and whether Norris’s false declarations before the bankruptcy court caused the unnecessary expenditure of government or court resources. The application of section 2J1.3(b)(2)’s enhancement for false declarations causing the expenditure of resources in a bankruptcy proceeding presents an issue of first impression in this Court. Neither section 2J1.3’s language nor its commentary distinguishes between perjury in the criminal context and perjury in civil or bankruptcy proceedings. See United States v. Holland, 22 F.3d 1040, 1046-48 & n. 11 (11th Cir.1994) (<HOLDING>). Other courts have held that a defendant

A: holding that cr 60b applies to criminal as well as civil judgments
B: holding that the sentencing guideline governing perjury cases section 2j13 applies to perjury committed in civil as well as criminal proceedings
C: holding rule 38 applies to frivolous criminal appeals as well as civil appeals
D: holding that trial court did not abuse its discretion in overruling motion for new trial on perjury grounds
B.