With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". immediately appealable.”); In re Aldunate, 3 F.3d 54, 57 (2d Cir. 1993) ("We have jurisdiction over this [§ 1782] appeal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291.”). 7 . We acknowledge that Credit Suisse had not been served in and was unaware of the § 1782 proceeding until it was served with the subpoena, which it moved to quash on the basis that the district court erred in granting the § 1782 application. 8 . Credit Suisse also argued on appeal that the district court lacked the power to compel production of the documents that Fuhr sought because the documents were located abroad, and § 1782 does not have extraterritorial reach, After briefing was completed, we held in another case that § 1782 has extraterritorial reach. See Sergeeva v. Tripleton Int'l Ltd., 834 F.3d 1194, 1200 (11th Cir. 2016) (<HOLDING>). Credit Suisse does not argue that Sergeeva is

A: holding that prosecution of defendant in the united states for hostage taking based on acts committed outside the united states did not violate due process
B: holding that the phrase possession or custody in  5225b requires actual and not merely constructive possession
C: holding that a federally issued writ of habeas corpus  reaches only convictions obtained in violation of some provision of the united states constitution
D: holding that  1782 reaches responsive documents and information located outside the united states in the possession custody or control of the compelled party
D.