With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". (Feldman, M.J.), to support this argument. In Mangla, the defendant subpoenaed the plaintiffs treating physician to be deposed about discrepancies in his diagnoses establishing conflicting onset dates for the plaintiffs claimed total disability. In ruling on the physician’s motion to quash the subpoena, Judge Feldman held that the physician was entitled only to the statutory attendance fee of $40 per day, “[g]iven the nature of the underlying cause of action,” id. at 139, and considering the witness’s “fail[ure] to persuade [the] Court that he would be unduly burdened by not receiving his customary hourly fees in exchange for his testimony.” Id. at 139 (citing Irons v. Karce-ski, 74 F.3d 1262 (D.C.Cir.1995), cert, denied, 517 U.S. 1189, 116 S.Ct. 1677, 134 L.Ed.2d 780 (1996) (<HOLDING>)). In reaching his conclusion in Mangla that

A: holding that trial court may modify sentence on the same day as the assessment of the initial sentence and before the court adjourns for the day
B: holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion by reducing the hourly rate billed by 50 for travel time
C: holding that there was no coercion by the trial court where the jury deliberated all day friday and all day saturday
D: holding that an attorney fact witness was not entitled to be paid his hourly billing rate and not unduly burdened by being compensated 40 per day plus mileage for an expected three day deposition
D.