With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". court abused its discretion by imposing sanctions because (1) the case involved an issue of first impression under Florida law regarding whether a trust beneficiary could sue a court appointed trustee, and Rule 11 sanctions are not appropriate to punish an attorney for advancing a legal theory on a question of first impression, (2) the district court failed to resolve all doubts in O’Shaughnessy’s favor, and (3) O’Shaughnessy conducted a reasonable investigation under the circumstances. After a thorough review of the record and consideration of the parties’ briefs, we affirm. The district court did not abuse its substantial discretion in imposing Rule 11 sanctions against O’Shaughnessy. See Cooter & Gell v. Hartmarx Corp., 496 U.S. 384, 405, 407, 110 S.Ct. 2447, 110 L.Ed.2d 359 (1990) (<HOLDING>). Sanctions are warranted when a party files a

A: holding that courts of appeals should review all aspects of the district courts rule 11 determination for abuse of discretion and noting that the district court has broad discretion to impose rule 11 sanctions
B: holding under third circuit law that denial of rule 11 sanctions is reviewed for abuse of discretion
C: holding that a rule 11 sanctions award need only be appropriate thereby according broad discretion to the trial court
D: recognizing district courts wide range of discretion in setting amount of rule 11 sanctions
A.