With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". has failed to preserve mandatory and jurisdictional.” Cel-A-Pak v. Cal. Agr. Labor Relations Bd., 680 F.2d 664, 666 (9th Cir.1982); see also Bowles v. Russell, 551 U.S. 205, 214, 127 S.Ct. 2360, 168 L.Ed.2d 96 (2007) (“[T]he timely filing of a notice of appeal in a civil case is a jurisdictional requirement.”). The City did not file a notice of appeal as to this issue— although the City filed a notice of appeal of the underlying judgment on May 14, 2009, the district court did not order the award of attorneys’ fees until July 10, 2009, and the City failed to file any timely supplemental notice of appeal on the attorneys’ fee issue. Accordingly, we do not have jurisdiction to review the attorneys’ fee award. See E.E.O.C. v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 187 F.3d 1241, 1250 (10th Cir.1999) (<HOLDING>); see also Dougherty v. Lehman, 711 F.2d 555,

A: holding that identification of appellant in notice of appeal is a jurisdictional requirement and that the failure to name a party in a notice to appeal constitutes a failure of that party to appeal
B: holding trial court retains jurisdiction to consider motion for attorneys fees despite filing of notice of appeal of final judgment
C: holding that the court did not have jurisdiction to hear an appeal after an untimely filing of a notice of appeal
D: holding the court lacked jurisdiction where the defendant failed to file a notice of appeal on the attorneys fee issue because a supplemental notice of appeal is required for us to have jurisdiction over an attorneys fees issue that becomes final subsequent to the initial notice of appeal
D.