With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". HCHC thus seeks to avoid reargument of these substantive issues to the district court on remand. As a result, HCHC contends that, even assuming there is no longer a case or controversy regarding HCHC’s request for preliminary relief, the court should resolve the underlying merits of HCHC’s claim before remanding the matter to the district court. “Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction and can only hear actual ‘cases or controversies’ as defined under Article III of the Constitution. The ‘case or controversy’ requirement applies at all stages of review.” Neighborhood Transp. Network, Inc. v. Pena, 42 F.3d 1169, 1172 (8th Cir.1994). A federal court no longer has jurisdiction to hear a case on appeal when it “no longer presents an actual, ongoing case or controversy.” Id. (<HOLDING>); see also Agrigenetics, Inc. v. Rose, 62 F.3d

A: holding that the plaintiffs claim was moot because the construction project which was the subject of the dispute had been completed
B: holding that a court lacks jurisdiction when the issues in a case are no longer live
C: holding continuing controversy not moot
D: holding that complaint seeking to enjoin highway construction project pending completion of environmental impact statement for larger project no longer presented any live controversy after highway project was completed and thus was moot and provided no basis for federal court jurisdiction
D.