With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". law, Schiller v. Physicians Res. Grp., Inc., 342 F.3d 563, 567-68 (5th Cir.2003), but that is not the situation here. 10 . Irrespective of whether Tate both possesses a liberty interest and was denied due process under Wilkinson v. Austin, 545 U.S. 209, 125 S.Ct. 2384, 162 L.Ed.2d 174 (2005)— issues that neither the majority nor I address — Tate did not show — before the district court granted summary judgment — any competent evidence of either a liberty interest or a due process violation, let alone sufficient evidence to satisfy his burden to defeat summary judgment. See Duffie v. United States, 600 F.3d 362, 371 (5th Cir.2010) ("[Tjhe nonmov-ing party cannot survive a summary judgment motion by resting on the mere allegations of its pleadings.”). 11 . See Templet, 367 F.3d at 479 (<HOLDING>). 12 .See Fanning v. Metro. Transit Auth., 141

A: holding that affidavit from a new witness was not newly discovered evidence because trial counsel knew of the existence of the witness before trial trial counsel with due diligence could have discovered the evidence
B: holding that in order to qualify as newly discovered evidence the evidence must have been in existence and hidden at the time of judgment
C: holding evidence was not newly discovered because the underlying facts were well within the partys knowledge prior to the district courts entry of judgment
D: holding that the defendants evidence did not qualify as newly discovered evidence
C.