With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". to convict appellant of possession of an imitation controlled substance with the intent to distribute. In order to prove intent to distribute, the Commonwealth may rely on circumstantial evidence, so long as the evidence as a whole excludes every reasonable hypothesis of innocence. See Emerson v. Commonwealth, 43 Va.App. 263, 277, 597 S.E.2d 242, 249 (2004); Servis v. Commonwealth, 6 Va.App. 507, 524, 371 S.E.2d 156, 165 (1988). “ ‘Whether an alternative hypothesis of innocence is reasonable is a question of fact and, therefore, is binding on appeal unless plainly wrong.’” Emerson, 43 Va.App. at 277, 597 S.E.2d at 249 (quoting Archer v. Commonwealth, 26 Va.App. 1, 12-13, 492 S.E.2d 826, 832 (1997)); see also Haskins v. Commonwealth, 44 Va.App. 1, 9, 602 S.E.2d 402, 406 (2004) (<HOLDING>). To convict an individual of intent to

A: holding that almendareztorres rejected the argument that the fact of a prior conviction must be found by a jury
B: holding that where the fact finder has rejected the hypothesis of innocence that determination cannot be overturned as arbitrary unless no rational factfinder would have come to that conclusion
C: holding that the issue of proximate causation involves application of law to fact which should be left to the fact finder subject to limited review
D: holding that to comport with due process the legislation must have a rational basis for the deprivation and may not be so inadequate that the judiciary will characterize it as arbitrary
B.