With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". of a billing statement from Mr. Stanley. See id. Mr. Warren’s failure to provide the itemized statement either directly from his former attorney or supported by an affidavit from his former attorney is not necessarily fatal to his application. Amendment to an EAJA application is available where it “ ‘ar[i]se[s] out of the conduct, transaction, or occurrence set forth or attempted to be set forth’ in the initial application.” Scarborough, 541 U.S. at 418-19, 124 S.Ct. 1856 (quoting Fed.R.Civ.P. 15(c)(2)). This is not a case where the appellant wholly failed to address a statutorily articulated EAJA requirement; here, the appellant submitted a list that was technically deficient in that it is not clear that it is “from any attorney.” See Bazalo v. West, 150 F.3d 1380, 1384 (Fed.Cir.1998) (<HOLDING>). An amended application providing an itemized

A: holding that handcuffing satisfies this requirement
B: holding that the party prevailing on the significant issues in the litigation is the party that should be considered the prevailing party for attorneys fees
C: holding that prevailing party has no standing to appeal
D: holding that a mere statement that the appellant is a prevailing party satisfies eligibility requirement for jurisdictional purposes
D.