With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". the district court entered judgment on April 1, appeal on May 3, 2013, which did express an intent to appeal from the September 2010 order, that filing is legally inoperative because it was untimely filed. See M.E.S., Inc. v. Snell, 712 F.3d 666, 668 (2d Cir.2013) (disregarding amended notice of appeal belatedly filed under analogous circumstances). Kleehammer’s timely filed notice of appeal also expressed an intent to appeal from the Rule 11 sanction imposed on counsel. Because the district court did not sanction Kleehammer, there is no case or controversy with respect to her. “Where an award of sanctions runs only against the attorney, the attorney is the party in interest and must appeal in his or her name.” DeLuca v. Long Island Lighting Co., 862 F.2d 427, 429-30 (2d Cir.1988) (<HOLDING>). Although counsel could have separately

A: holding that the court lacked jurisdiction to consider an award of sanctions entered against attorney because the notice of appeal did not provide that attorney was appealing in his own name
B: holding that the district court lacked jurisdiction to review state disciplinary proceedings against attorney
C: holding because an award of attorney fees is discretionary court may consider attorney fees in relation to the underlying equities in the case
D: holding attorney lacked standing to challenge amount of attorney fees awarded plaintiffs not parties to the appeal
A.