With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". of Withdrawal” of the Rule 59 motion and a notice of appeal to this court. On January 5, 2011, the clerk of this court ordered briefs on whether this court should summarily dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. The order framed the issue as follows: Whether this court has jurisdiction where the notice of appeal was filed more than 30 days after entry of final judgment on September 27, 2010, and where the appellant withdrew his motion to vacate? See 28 U.S.C. § 2107(a); Fed. R.App. P. 4(a)(1)(A); Bowles v. Russell, 551 U.S. 205, 127 S.Ct. [sic] 2360, 2366 [168 L.Ed.2d 96] (2007) (“To day we make clear that the timely filing of a notice of appeal in a civil case is a jurisdictional requirement”). See also Vanderwerf v. Smithkline [sic] Beecham Corp., 603 F.3d 842 (10th Cir.2010) (<HOLDING>). De Leon v. Marcos, No. 10-1578 (10th Cir.

A: holding that the statute of limitations period begins to run when the allegedly discriminatory pension plan is applied to the plaintiffs and leaving determination of the actual date the statute begins to run on each claim to the district court
B: holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying motion to alteramend judgment where the plaintiff raised the choice of law issue for the first time after the entry of summary judgment
C: holding that where the appealing party withdraws its postjudgment motion and the district court does not issue an order on the motion or the withdrawal the time to appeal begins to run from the entry of final judgment
D: holding that a postjudgment motion to incorporate a sanction as part of the final judgment is a motion to modify the judgment and extends the trial courts jurisdiction
C.