Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
at 173-74 (explaining the District Court retains subject matter jurisdiction to rule on such motions because they are a continuation of the criminal case); see also id. at 173 n. 11 (emphasizing that appeals of § 2255 dispositions are governed by the civil rules). However, we did not need to decide which part of Fed. R. A pp. P. 4 applied because the Thomas notice of appeal, which was filed ten days after the relevant order was entered, was timely either way. Other cases discussing miscellaneous criminal post-judgment motions like the one here yield no clear direction. Compare United States v. Davis, 532 F.2d 752, 752 (4th Cir.1976) (per curiam) (suggesting that a post-judgment transcript request was a criminal matter), with United States v. Miramontez, 995 F.2d 56, 58 (5th Cir.1993) . In any event, we will consider the merits of
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that motions under rule 60b1 may not be used to evade the time limits of rule 4a in a case with a procedural posture similar to washingtons
B. recognizing that as of july 11 1994 contempt proceedings arising from civil actions are no longer governed by rule 333 ala rcrim p and instead are governed by rule 70a
C. holding that postjudgment postcollateralrelief request for grandjury transcripts was civil in nature and governed by rule 4a
D. holding that the filed rate doctrine barred request for damages but did not preclude request for injunction and civil penalties
E. holding that constructively fraudulent transfers are governed by rule 8
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.