With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". so, the Williams court acknowledged Cunningham’s effect and invoked the Fifth Circuit’s opinion in Click v. Abilene Nat’l Bank, 822 F.2d 544, 545 (5th Cir.1987), which refused to distinguish between types of sanctions. Williams, 243 F.3d at 210 n. 10. III. CONCLUSION The precedential effect of Cunningham is clear. We now expressly interpret Cunningham as extending to sanctions under § 1927 and a district court’s inherent powers, and overrule prior conflicting cases. Accordingly, this court lacks jurisdiction to entertain Leavitt’s interlocutory appeal. DISMISSED for lack of jurisdiction. 1 . We have treated interlocutory orders imposing sanctions pursuant to other authorities similarly. See, e.g., Telluride Mgmt. Solutions, Inc. v. Telluride Inv. Group, 55 F.3d 463, 465 (9th Cir.1995)

A: holding that an order imposing sanctions against an attorney for one of the parties in a pending case is final and therefore immediately appealable by the attorney
B: holding an order of rule 37a sanctions against an attorney is immediately appealable under  1291
C: holding that an order of consolidation is interlocutory and not immediately appealable
D: holding sanctions order pursuant to district courts inherent powers not immediately appealable
B.