With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". reversing that decision, which has been challenged in appeal nos. 2120872 and 2120907, is reversed. S. HealthSouth’s CON Application The record is clear that Health-South applied for the SHP-adjustment-bed CON in anticipation of the ultimate approval for 34 beds in its proposed facility. HealthSouth’s projections and data pertained to the operation and construction of the proposed 34-bed facility, yet the issue before the CONRB was whether a CON should be issued to HealthSouth for only 17 beds. The CON was issued for a differ ent number of beds than was supported by the evidence. We must determine whether the difference between the number of beds permitted in the CON and the number of beds supported by the evidence constitutes a material difference. See Affinity Hosp., 129 So.3d 1022 (<HOLDING>). The evidence presented by HealthSouth

A: holding that issuing a con to relocate 372 beds when all the presented evidence pertained to a proposed 398bed facility was an immaterial reduction in beds because the lesser number of beds permitted by the con would not affect the cost of the project or the projected revenue and expenses
B: holding that the defendants failed to establish an entitlement to dismissal of the plaintiffs complaint when the alleged fraud was immaterial to any issue that would ultimately be presented to the fact finder
C: holding that a prior application might affect the issuing judges finding of necessity
D: holding that reviewing court in a proper case may modify a judgment of conviction below and affirm it as a conviction of a lesser degree of the offense charged or of a lesser crime included therein where the errors do not affect the conviction of the lesser offense
A.