With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". cert. denied, 528 U.S. 928, 120 S.Ct. 324, 145 L.Ed.2d 253 (1999). Middleton asserts that he brought this motion within a reasonable time because he first defended the state MIRA litigation. Even assuming that the asserted subsection (6) basis for the motion is separate from Middleton’s claim of fraud and misconduct, we would nevertheless con-elude that the district court correctly denied the motion as untimely. See United States v. Wells, 347 F.3d 280, 287 (8th Cir.2003) (“It is a well-settled principle that we may affirm a district court’s judgment on any basis supported by the record.” (internal marks omitted)), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 124 S.Ct. 2435, 158 L.Ed.2d 996 (2004). Middleton’s three-year delay was not reasonable. See Kellogg v. Strack, 269 F.3d 100, 104 (2d Cir.2001) (<HOLDING>), cert. denied, 535 U.S. 932, 122 S.Ct. 1306,

A: holding that a five month delay was unreasonable
B: holding that a 26month delay was a period of time which constitutes a patently unreasonable delay absent mitigating circumstances
C: holding that a 13 month delay was unreasonable
D: holding that a six month delay was unreasonable
B.