With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". per day that a PRP does not comply with a UAO). GE analogizes the imposition of fines under a UAO to a judgment for money damages — it may take a court order to enforce the judgment, but payment is due from the date of the judgment. See PI. Opp. at 24-25. GE contends that the UAO need not be self-executing to constitute a deprivation, citing the Supreme Court’s decision Hodel v. Virginia Surface Mining, 452 U.S. 264, 298-301, 101 S.Ct. 2352, 69 L.Ed.2d 1 (1982). In Hodel, an administrative order issued by the Secretary of Interior requiring the immediate cessation of mining operations was found to constitute a deprivation of property even though judicial intervention was required to collect penalties. See also Fuentes v. Shevin, 407 U.S. 67, 80, 92 S.Ct. 1983, 32 L.Ed.2d 556 (1972) (<HOLDING>). GE’s arguments fall short of establishing

A: holding replevin statute unconstitutional although it merely authorized the seizure of property which occurred only after the order was given to the sheriff
B: holding that a statute must not be given the one of two reasonable interpretations which will render it unconstitutional
C: holding pennsylvania replevin statute unconstitutional
D: holding the contract was not authorized by law
A.