With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". in attorney fees and $126.20 in costs, and denied five post-judgment motions filed by Mr. Leo, including a motion for reconsideration of the district court’s March 22, 2011 order. Mr. Leo then filed two motions: (1) a motion for reconsideration of the district court’s April 15 order, which was itself a denial of his previous motion for reconsideration; and (2) a motion for reconsideration of the award of attorney fees. In an April 21, 2011, 2011 WL 1541291, memorandum and order that denied Mr. Leo’s motions, the di matter that his first appeal had not been resolved at the time Mr. Leo filed his second suit because under the federal law of claim preclusion, the district court’s order was final for res judicata purposes. See MACTEC, Inc. v. Gorelick, 427 F.3d 821, 832 (10th Cir.2005) (<HOLDING>), citing 18A Charles Alan Wright et al.,

A: holding that illinois federal court erred in giving preclusive effect to minnesota state courts dismissal of action on statute of limitations grounds based on minnesotas treatment of statutes of limitations as procedural in nature and without preclusive effect
B: holding that previous ordered entered with prejudice did not have preclusive effect
C: holding that the appealability of a judgment  does not hinder its preclusive effect
D: holding that courts must look to the state that rendered the judgment to determine whether the courts of that state would afford the judgment preclusive effect
C.