With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". 3-4) (Page ID #1382-83); R. 69-11 (Nelson Aff., Exh. at 1-5) (Page ID #1762-66). For example, from December 11, 2014 through May 18, 2015, 898 individuals were erroneously assigned to ESO Medicaid. R. 58-3 (Roderick Aff. at 3-4) (Page ID #1382-83). From May 19, 2015 to August 14, 2015, 246 individuals were erroneously assigned to ESO. R. 69-2 (Suppl. Roderick Aff. at 3) (Page ID #1679). Given the evidence on the record, we cannot say that it is “absolutely clear the allegedly wrongful behavior could not reasonably be expected to recur.” Laidlaw, 528 U.S. at 190, 120 S.Ct. 693. Although DHHS has apparently undertaken significant efforts to remedy this problem, the effect of these fixes on the prospect of future violations is a factual dispute that remains open. Id. at 193, 120 S.Ct. 693 (<HOLDING>). The district court erred in concluding that

A: holding that although the 1972 election had long since passed the case was not moot because the statute under review would apply to other candidates in the future
B: holding a case was not moot where the effect of defendants substantial compliance and the facility closure on the prospect of future violations is a disputed factual matter
C: holding that district court appropriately dismissed suit for lack of subject matter jurisdiction when the case was moot
D: holding plaintiffs appeal of the denial of a preliminary injunction moot where defendants directive no longer in effect
B.