With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". S.Ct. 137, 102 L.Ed.2d 110 (1988); In re THC Fin. Corp., 837 F.2d 389, 392 (9th Cir.1988); In re Triangle Chemicals, Inc., 697 F.2d 1280, 1289 (5th Cir.1983); In re Berman, 167 B.R. 323 (Bankr.D.Mass.1994). The inquiry requires an applicant to demonstrate both the professional person’s suitability for appointment and the existence of excusable neglect sufficient to justify the failure to file a timely application. Singson, 41 F.3d at 319-20. The Supreme Court suggests that when a bankruptcy court is faced with the task of determining the presence of excusable neglect the analysis is twofold. First, is there neglect, whether actual negligence or a mere omission to act? See Pioneer Inv. Services v. Brunswick Associates, 507 U.S. 380, 392-94, 113 S.Ct. 1489, 1497, 123 L.Ed.2d 74 (1993) (<HOLDING>). Second, is it excusable? To answer this

A: holding that materiality does not require a showing that the creditors were prejudiced by the false statement
B: holding that the observation of evidence in plain view is not a search for purposes of the fourth amendment and does not require a warrant
C: holding that for purposes of rule 9006b the code does not require a showing of extraordinary circumstances
D: holding bia should consider filing of late brief upon showing of extraordinary circumstances
C.