With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". Joseph Nash appeals the district court’s dismissal of his case for failure to prosecute. We REVERSE. As an initial matter, we note that Nash’s appeal was rendered timely by his June 3, 2002, and June 6, 2002, motions for reconsideration and his July 3, 2002, notice of appeal. See Feldman v. Allstate Ins. Co., 322 F.3d 660, 665-66 (9th Cir.2003) (<HOLDING>). The district court’s order to show cause

A: holding that notice of appeal was not effectively taken where appeal was filed simultaneously with timely motion for reconsideration because when timely motion for reconsideration is filed a notice of appeal filed prior to disposition of the motion to reconsider has no effect
B: holding that a postdecision motion only tolls the 30day requirement if it is timely filed
C: holding that a timely motion for reconsideration tolls the statute of limitations even if the motion is procedurally invalid
D: holding that the district court did not err by concluding that the bankruptcy court did not abuse its discretion in denying motion for continuance motion to withdraw and motion for reconsideration and rehearing
C.