With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". prior judgment did not amount to a victory for the claimants, but simply reversed and remanded their cases to the SSA for further consideration. As the district court literally reads the statute, an award of attorney’s fees is unavailable unless its judgment entitles the claimant to an award of past-due benefits and includes an award of attorney’s fees under § 406(b). The statute provides: Whenever a court renders a judgment favorable to a claimant under this sub-chapter who is represented before the court by an attorney, the court may determine and allow as part of its judgment a reasonable fee for such representation, not in excess of 25 percent of the total of the past-due bene is to protect claimants by limiting the amount attorneys may collect. See Shoemaker, 853 F.2d at 860-61 (<HOLDING>). Moreover, the Supreme Court has held that a

A: holding that a case awarding fees under 42 usc  1988 has no application in a private claim for attorneys fees sounding in mississippi contract law
B: holding that a district court may consider interim benefits received pursuant to 42 usc  423g in awarding attorneys fees under  406b
C: holding that the court lacked jurisdiction to consider the appeal because it was filed before the final order awarding attorneys fees
D: holding trial court erred in awarding attorneys fees to physicians in absence of any evidence of attorneys fees
B.