With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". September 9, 2010 dismissal of his appeal from the settlement judgment pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e) for lack of “an arguable basis in law or fact,” Order, Searles v. Beacon, 10-1058-cv, deprived the district court of jurisdiction to hear a Rule 60(b) challenge to the same judgment. In support, he cites Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 34, 112 S.Ct. 1728, 118 L.Ed.2d 340 (1992) (“[A] § 1915[e] dismissal is not a dismissal on the merits.... ”). Denton affords Searles no relief because it held only that the § 1915(e) dismissal of a pro se complaint did e 60(b) motion only if “later events arise that were not previously considered by the appellate court.” Id. at 1270 (internal quotation marks omitted); see also Fine v. Bellefonte Underwriters Ins. Co., 758 F.2d 50, 52 (2d Cir.1985) (<HOLDING>). As Searles’s Rule 60(b) motion was not based

A: holding without extended discussion that even if the district court should have construed the petitioners motion under 18 usc  3582c2 as a rule 60b motion the court would nonetheless have had to recharacterize the rule 60b motion as an sshp
B: holding that motion for reconsideration would be construed not as a rule 60b motion but rather as an unauthorized successive motion under  2255 which the district court may have been without jurisdiction to consider
C: holding district courts decision to deny a rule 60b motion is a separately appealable decision requiring a new notice of appeal
D: holding that district court correctly determined that it did not have jurisdiction to consider rule 60b motion after appellate decision because movant cited no material change of circumstances or new evidence
D.