With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". Circuit dismissed the appeal for nonpayment. See id., Doc. 19. A circuit court’s dismissal of an appeal on the ground of frivolousness would fall under § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i) and would count as a strike. See Jennings, 175 F.3d at 780-81. In Government of the State of Israel, however, the Seventh Circuit did not actually dismiss the appeal as frivolous, but for nonpayment of the filing fee, that is, for failing to prosecute the appeal. A dismissal for failure to prosecute would not necessarily be a strike because “[e]ach of the three categories of strikes in [§ 1915(g)] involves dispositions that look to the merits of the suit[, but] a dismissal for failure to prosecute is made without regard to the merits of the claim[.]” Butler v. Dep’t of Justice, 492 F.3d 440, 442-44 (D.C.Cir.2007) (<HOLDING>). However, in Thompson v. Drug Enforcement

A: holding where there was no indication in the procedural history that the court had held that the five prior appeals dismissed for failure to prosecute were frivolous that the dismissals did not count as strikes under  1915g
B: holding defendant still considered successful party under ars  1234101a where there was no adjudication on the merits as action was dismissed without prejudice for failure to prosecute
C: holding that dismissal for failure to prosecute rendered moot any prior ruling of the district court
D: holding that application of  1b13a2 to a dismissed count was not inequitable because the plea bargain did not impliedly preclude the district court from considering evidence of the conduct charged in the dismissed count and the defendant could have predicted that the court would aggregate the conduct
A.