With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". Robb v. Norfolk & W. Ry., 122 F.3d 354, 362 (7th Cir.1997). The majority’s rationale suggests that an attorney’s misinterpretation of an unambiguous rule never can be excusable neglect, regardless of the circumstances. Such a perspective, however, is untenable, for it contravenes the contextual nature of the excusable neglect determination. See Pioneer, 507 U.S. at 395, 113 S.Ct. at 1498, 123 L.Ed.2d at 89; see also United States v. Brown, 133 F.3d 993, 997 (7th Cir.1998) (“But Pioneer made clear that the standard is a balancing test, meaning that a delay might be excused even where the reasons for the delay are not particularly compelling.”), cert. denied, — U.S.-, 118 S.Ct. 1824, 140 L.Ed.2d 960 (1998). But cf. Advanced Estimating Sys. v. Riney, 130 F.3d 996, 998 (11th Cir.1997) (<HOLDING>); Yost, 92 F.3d at 825 (finding that counsel’s

A: holding that an attorneys bills are high evidence as to the maximum value of the attorneys services
B: holding as a matter of law that an attorneys misunderstanding of the plain language of a rule cannot constitute excusable neglect such that a party is relieved of the consequences of failing to comply with a statutory deadline and providing no discussion of circumstances other than the attorneys error
C: holding that reliance on an attorneys erroneous belief as to the date of an estate tax filing deadline is insufficient to constitute reasonable cause
D: holding that exclusionary rule to be applied as a matter of state law is no broader than the federal rule
B.