With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". actually charged “were bargain rates”). Rather, the bankruptcy court considered the quality and efficiency of counsel’s services. The court’s conclusion that $200 per hour was a reasonable rate is not an abuse of discretion. In short, the bankruptcy court and district court permissibly calculated fees and costs. As the district court noted, a recalculation may be required as a result of the remand to the bankruptcy court, but no error in the award of fees and costs appears to date. AFFIRMED. 1 . The Bank filed no cross-appeal. Therefore, the Bank's argument that we should reverse the district court’s holding that Plaintiffs held equitable title to the Property is not properly before us. See El Paso Natural Gas Co. v. Neztsosie, 526 U.S. 473, 479, 119 S.Ct. 1430, 143 L.Ed.2d 635 (1999) (<HOLDING>). 2 . The Bank relies on Stanley v. Crossland,

A: holding that appellate courts may uphold a trial courts ruling on any legal theory or basis applicable to the case but may not reverse a trial courts ruling on any theory or basis that might have been applicable to the case but was not raised
B: holding that failure of an appellee to crossappeal ordinarily precludes review where an appellee seeks to enlarge his rights or lessen those of an adversary but is not a jurisdictional bar
C: holding that the petitioner may not turn a clerical error into a windfall of rights it would not otherwise enjoy internal quotation marks omitted
D: holding that in the absence of a crossappeal an appellee may urge affirmance of the lower courts ruling on any basis appearing in the record but may not attack the decree with a view either to enlarging his own rights thereunder or of lessening the rights of his adversary internal quotation marks omitted
D.