With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". to his objections to the magistrate’s recommendation. Although O’Neill first alluded to exhibits that could show that the government illegally monitored the so-called “bugged lamp” in his original motion to suppress Title III evidence filed on February 20, 1998, he had not disclosed the identity of these exhibits until he filed his objections to the Recommendation and Order on February 18, 1999. ' Therefore, O’Neill effectively “sandbagged” Magis-tate Judge Callahan, the government, and this court by choosing to withhold the identity of his “bugged lamp” evidence for almost one year. O’Neill further sandbagged the magistrate by first presenting his evidence in an objection to the Recommendation and Order. See Thomas v. Am, 474 U.S. 140, 148, 106 S.Ct. 466, 88 L.Ed.2d 435 (1985) (<HOLDING>). The “same rationale that prevents a party

A: holding that claims which were not presented to the motion court cannot be raised for the first time on appeal
B: holding court will generally not consider arguments presented for the first time on appeal
C: holding that ordinarily courts are not obligated to review evidence presented for the first time on appeal
D: holding that issues not properly presented to the bankruptcy court  cannot be raised  for the first time on appeal
C.