With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". the statute at issue relies on individualized assessments by those enforcing it, as numerous other penal statutes do, it does not encourage arbitrary and discriminatory enforcement. Accordingly, the Court finds that Va. Code § 46.2-1054 is neither facially void for vagueness nor unconstitutionally vague as applied to the defendant. Pursuant to Va. Code § 16.1-131.1, this matter is remanded for pr v. McConnell, 68 Va. Cir. 471, 478 (Charlottesville City 2005); see also Government of the Virgin Islands v. Steven, 134 F.3d 526, 528-29 (3d Cir. 1998) (finding the Virgin Islands’ driving while intoxicated statute, V.I. Code Ann., tit. 20, § 493, which is similar in substance to the Virginia statute, not unconstitutionally vague). 3 See Morgan v. State, 22 N.E.3d 570, 573-77 (Ind. 2014) (<HOLDING>). 4 See generally Juares v. Commonwealth, 26

A: holding factor b is not unconstitutionally vague
B: holding that indianas public intoxication statute ind code  71513 which is similar in substance to the virginia statute is not unconstitutionally vague
C: holding flag contempt statute unconstitutionally vague
D: holding va code  182460a is not unconstitutionally vague
B.