With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". that the Notice of Appeal pertained to Omar Tecat in CR 02-575) App. at 7. 5 . That docket entry stated: Clerk's Quality Control Message: Document [3] NOTICE OF DOCKETING filed by the USCA should have been filed in the traditional manner, on paper, as this case is not subject to e-filing at this time, as previously explained on 7/19/05. (ck) App. at 2. 6 . The question has recently arisen in the courts of appeals as to whether Rules 3 and 4 of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure are rules that govern subject-matter jurisdiction (that may not be waived) or are merely "inflexible claim-processing” rules (that may be waived). This concern was sparked by the Supreme Court’s recent holdings in Eberhart v. United States, - U.S. -, 126 S.Ct. 403, 407, 163 L.Ed.2d 14 (2005) (per curiam) (<HOLDING>), and Kontrick v. Ryan, 540 U.S. 443, 455-456,

A: holding that rule 33 of the federal rules of criminal procedure is an inflexible claimprocessing rule that may be waived if not raised
B: holding that the time limit to move for a new trial under federal rule of criminal pro cedure 33b2 is claimprocessing rule forfeited by governments failure to timely raise it
C: holding that kontrick and eberhart require the conclusion that rule 59e is a claimprocessing rule
D: holding that an issue not raised on appeal is waived
A.