With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". district court, and this court. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a dismissal under the Rooker-Feldman doctrine, Noel v. Hall, 341 F.3d 1148, 1154 (9th Cir.2003), and we consider sua sponte Article III standing, Pritikin v. Dep’t of Energy, 254 F.3d 791, 796 (9th Cir.2001). We affirm in part, vacate in part, and remand. The district court properly concluded that the Roolcer-Feldman doctrine barred the claims challenging Albrecht’s disbarment by the Oregon Supreme Court because those claims are a “de facto appeal” of a state court decision, and raise constitutional claims that are “inextricably intertwined” with that prior state court decision. See Noel, 341 F.3d at 1158; Mothershed v. Justices of the Supreme Court, 410 F.3d 602, 607-08 (9th Cir.2005) (<HOLDING>). Albrecht lacks standing to sue defendants for

A: holding that this court lacked jurisdiction under  46110 for lack of finality and that the district court also lacked jurisdiction because the orders were not final and thus not ripe for review
B: holding that because the state failed to properly file the complaint the district court lacked jurisdiction to proceed to trial
C: holding that the district court lacked jurisdiction to review state disciplinary proceedings against attorney
D: holding that the federal district court lacked subject matter jurisdiction to review plaintiffs complaint to the extent they sought review  of the district of columbia court of appeals denial of their petitions
C.