With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". conversion should have an opportunity to reassert objections to exemptions. Indeed, Rule 1019(2) specifically addresses time period for actions after conversion, and provides for the re-running of times allowed for filing a claim, objecting to discharge and objecting to dischargeability. There is no new time period, however, for the trustee to assert objections to exemptions. “If a new time period for objections to exemptions began to run upon conversion of a case, one would expect to see it mentioned in Rule 1019(2), [and][i]t is not there.” In re Brown, 178 B.R. 722, 728 (Bankr.E.D.Tenn.1995). Where the statute is clear, it is not appropriate to look to policy arguments. United States v. Ron Pair Enterprises, Inc., 489 U.S. 235, 240-41, 109-S.Ct. 1026, 1030, 103 L.Ed.2d 290 (1989) (<HOLDING>), and none of the policy arguments are

A: holding that the relevant dispositive inquiry  is whether it would be clear to a reasonable state official that his conduct was unlawful
B: recognizing that legislative history is not used to create ambiguity where statutory language is clear
C: holding that where the statutory scheme is clear the inquiry should end
D: holding that the relevant time of inquiry is the date of the filing of the complaint
C.