Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
603 P.2d at 525-26 (relating to RAJI 21); see also Coury Bros. Ranches, Inc. v. Ellsworth, 103 Ariz. 515, 446 P.2d 458, 463 (1968) (relating to RAJI 23). 5. The district court did not err in denying Suenos a new trial. Suenos has not established any valid grounds for a new trial, such as “(1) manifest error of law; (2) manifest error of fact; and (3) newly discovered evidence.” Brown v. Wright, 588 F.2d 708, 710 (9th Cir.1978) (per curiam). 6. The district court did not err in declining to strike Suenos’s motion for attorney’s fees as untimely. The time limit was not jurisdictional. See Arizona Local Rule 54.2(b)(2) (setting due date as 14 days but allowing alternative deadlines); see also Schweiger v. China Doll Rest., Inc., 138 Ariz. 183, 673 P.2d 927, 930 n. 2 (Ct.App.1983) . Moreover, the district court found that
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that a time limit for filing a complaint as a creditor in bankruptcy proceedings is not jurisdictional
B. holding that section 1144 is a jurisdictional limitation
C. holding time limitation on statement of costs is not jurisdictional and late filing is within courts discretion
D. holding that time limit for filing petition for review is mandatory and jurisdictional
E. holding time for filing notice of appeal under rule 8002 is jurisdictional
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.