With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". and 1986 claims. Accordingly, the judgment below is AFFIRMED. 1 . Plaintiff argues for the first time in this appeal that defendants’ actions constituted intentional infliction of emotional distress under Ohio law. These allegations were neither made in plaintiffs third amended complaint nor otherwise presented to the District Court, and they "may not be raised for the first time on appeal." Yeiter v. Secretary, 818 F.2d 8, 11 (6th Cir.), cert. denied, 484 U.S. 854, 108 S.Ct. 160, 98 L.Ed.2d 115 (1987) (citing Wright v. Holbrook, 794 F.2d 1152, 1157 (6th Cir.1986)). 2 . In considering the issue of vagueness, we are mindful that while the present case is a civil suit, § 2511 also provides for criminal penalties. 3 . See abo In re Express-News Corp., 695 F.2d 807, 808-11 (5th Cir.1982) (<HOLDING>); United States v. Sherman, 581 F.2d 1358, 1361

A: holding local rule barring posttrial interviews of even willing jurors without leave of court violated first amendment right to gather news
B: holding the sixth amendment right to effective assistance extends to a criminal defendants first appeal as of right
C: recognizing utility of amendment as a proper basis for dismissal without leave to amend
D: recognizing first amendment retaliation right
A.