With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". to such motions when the claimholder simply fails to respond to the claims objection, resulting in the entry of an order without further hearing. Compare In re Jack Kline Co., 440 B.R. 712, 741 (Bankr.S.D.Tex.2010) (interpreting the Fifth Circuit’s holding in Colley to mean that “if the parties have not litigated the merits of the proof of claim, Rule 60 is inapplicable and the bankruptcy court has wide discretion pursuant to § 502(j) to determine whether ‘cause’ exists for reconsidering the allowance of a claim[,]” but “[i]f the parties have litigated the merits of the proof of claim, [] then the bankruptcy court must apply Rule 60(b) in determining whether ‘cause’ exists for reconsidering the allowance of a claim”) with In re Gonzalez, 372 B.R. 837, 840-41 (Bankr.W.D.Tex.2007) (<HOLDING>). Here, the court’s order granting the chapter

A: holding that a second motion to reconsider served within ten days of the denial of the first motion does not extend the time period for filing a notice of appeal from the underlying judgment
B: holding that a motion to reconsider a section 2255 ruling is available and that it is to be treated asa rule 59e motion if filed within 10 days of entry of the challenged order
C: holding that rule 60b is necessarily applicable if the motion to reconsider is filed more than ten days after the order disallowing the claim even if the motion is couched as one under section 502j and even though the objection to the claim was not litigated
D: holding without extended discussion that even if the district court should have construed the petitioners motion under 18 usc  3582c2 as a rule 60b motion the court would nonetheless have had to recharacterize the rule 60b motion as an sshp
C.