With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". the merits of the United States’ motion under Bankruptcy Rule 9006(b), as the bankruptcy court should be allowed to exercise its discretion in the first instance. Instead, the Court remands this matter to the bankruptcy court for the application of the guidelines set forth in Pioneer regarding the presence or absence of excusable neglect. The Court notes the lack of research and analysis in the litigants’ briefs to the bankruptcy court. Neither counsel cited to or addressed Pioneer, even though it has been the premier case interpreting excusable neglect under Bankruptcy Rule 9006(b) for twelve years. The Court reminds counsel of their duty to do proper research and cite to legal authority supporting the argument raised. Phillips v. Calhoun, 956 F.2d 949, 953-54 (10th Cir. 1992) (<HOLDING>). The [bankruptcy] court [i]s not obligated to

A: holding that a litigant has standing to challenge the constitutionality of a statute if the law is unconstitutional as applied to that particular litigant
B: holding that a litigant must support an argument with legal authority
C: holding that an appellant waived a claim where he failed to cite any legal authority in support of an argument in his appellate brief
D: holding that a party waives an argument if the party fails to elaborate or provide any citation of authority in support of the argument
B.