With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". and would have received a sentence less than five years; (8) the government did not prove that he was in a conspiracy to distribute marijuana; and (9) the indictment was defective, because a violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(B)(vii) should only be charged if the defendant was in a conspiracy or if there is evidence showing that the defendant actually carried out distribution. Citing the waiver of collateral attack contained in the plea agreement, the government moved for dismissal of Mr. Kutilek’s § 2255 motion. The district court agreed, finding Mr. Kutilek’s claim of ineffective assistance of counsel to be unsubstantiated and the rest of his claims to be barred by the waiver. Mr. Kutilek filed a timely notice of appeal, see United States v. Pinto, 1 F.3d 1069, 1070 (10th Cir.1993) (<HOLDING>), along with a petition that the district court

A: holding that 60day time limit for notice of appeal in civil cases not 10day limit in criminal cases applies to  2255 proceedings
B: holding that a time limit for filing a complaint as a creditor in bankruptcy proceedings is not jurisdictional
C: holding that the circuit judge did not have the authority to extend the thirtyday time limit for filing a notice of appeal
D: holding that 10day notice provision for motion to recuse in rule 18a explicitly apply to criminal cases
A.