With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". 242, 248, 106 S.Ct. 2505, 2510, 91 L.Ed.2d 202 (1986); United States v. Bloom, 112 F.3d 200, 205 (5th Cir. 1-997); Fraire v. City of Arlington, 957 F.2d at 1273; Hanks v. Transcontinental. Gas Pipe Line Corp., 953 F.2d at 997; Lechuga v. Southern Pacific Transportation Company, 949 F.2d 790, 794 (5th Cir.1992). A dispute about a material fact is "genuine” if the evidence is such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the non- , moving party. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. at 248, 106 S.Ct. at 2510; Stults v. Conoco, Inc., 76 F.3d 651, 654 (5th Cir.1996); Burfield v. Brown, Moore & Flint, Inc., 51 F.3d 583, 588 (5th Cir.1995). 39 . Tacon Mechanical Contractors v. Aetna Casualty and Surety Company, 65 F.3d 486, 488 (5th Cir.1995). 40 . See Celote 9 (5th Cir.1984), (<HOLDING>); and Jones v. Menard, 559 F.2d 1282, 1285 n. 5

A: holding that an unsworn letter is not proper summary judgment proof
B: holding that unsworn statements may not be considered on a motion for summary judgment
C: holding that a district court may not consider either hearsay evidence in affidavits or unsworn documents in a summary judgment proceeding
D: holding that a signed but unsworn letter which is not otherwise authenticated is hearsay and should not be considered as evidence in opposition to a motion for summary judgment
A.