With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". of convenience weighed in its favor. The motion was denied without comment. 4 . Clinton Foods, Inc. v. United States, 188 F.2d 289 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 342 U.S. 825, 72 S.Ct. 45, 96 L.Ed. 624 (1951); Jiffy Lubricator Co. v. Stewart-Warner Corp., 177 F.2d 360. (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 338 U.S. 947, 70 S.Ct. 484, 94 L.Ed. 584 (1950). At least one circuit has recognized the availability of the Interlocutory Appeals Act of 1958, 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b) as a means of reviewing a transfer motion under section 1404(a). Humble Oil & Ref. Co. v. Bell Marine Serv., Inc., 321 F.2d 53 (5th Cir. 1963). But cf. A. Olinick & Sons v. Dempster Brothers, Inc., 365 F.2d 439 (2d Cir. 1966); Standard v. Stoll Packing Corp., 315 F.2d 626 (3d Cir. 1963); Bufalino v. Kennedy, 273 F.2d 71 (6th Cir. 1959) (<HOLDING>). In any case, Ellicott failed to seek

A: holding that there is no right to habeas review of administrative evidentiary determinations before a district court where direct review of the administrative proceedings is available in the appellate courts
B: holding alien not denied judicial review because habeas was available
C: holding that 1292b is not available to review a district judges disposition under 1404a
D: holding that because review of plaintiffs claim is available under the clean water act it is not subject to review under the apa empha sis in original citations omitted
C.