With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". entered an order denying his motion to file newly discovered evidence and denying his application. On appeal Everett argues the district court violated his due process rights when it did not correctly file his motion and application and the State violated his due process rights by not responding to his motion and application. Everett contends the district court erred in denying his motion and application based on newly discovered evidence. Everett also argues the State wrongfully suppressed evidence and provided false testimony during the oral argument regarding Everett v. State, 2010 ND 226, 795 N.W.2d 37. We conclude the district court’s order denying Everett’s motion to file newly discovered evidence is not appealable. We dismiss the appeal. See Everett v. State, 2017 ND 93, ¶ 14 (<HOLDING>). [¶ 6] Daniel J. Crothers Lisa Fair McEvers

A: holding that a bankruptcy court order denying a trustees claim to immunity was final and appealable under the collateral order doctrine
B: holding district court order denying leave of court to allow everett further filings was not an appealable order
C: holding an order denying a motion for summary judgment is interlocutory and not appealable
D: holding that a district court order denying anonymity to the parties is a collateral order
B.