With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". Sean Michael Park appeals pro se from the district court’s order imposing mone tary sanctions against him for filing an improper notice of removal. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an abuse of discretion. Chambers v. NASCO, Inc., 501 U.S. 32, 55, 111 S.Ct. 2123, 115 L.Ed.2d 27 (1991). We affirm. The district court did not abuse its discretion by awarding attorney’s fees against Park as a sanction after giving him notice and an opportunity to respond, and finding, after an evidentiary hearing, that Park misrepresented that he was an intervening party and signed defendant’s name without her authorization on the notice of removal. See id. at 43-46, 111 S.Ct. 2123 (<HOLDING>); see also Fed.R.Civ.P. 11(c) (stating that a

A: recognizing the federal courts ability to impose inherent power sanctions to the lawyers firm or employer
B: recognizing inherent power of courts of appeals
C: recognizing courts inherent power to impose sanctions including attorneys fees for conduct that abuses the judicial process
D: recognizing inherent power of federal district court to sanction conduct abusive of judicial process
C.