With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". of a benefit formula different from the old formula reinstated by the court for the interim period. To the extent that the Ninth Circuit’s opinion may be interpreted as ordering a payment of benefits contrary to the provisions of the underlying statute, we would respectfully be strongly disinclined to follow that rather provocative path. 25 . Plaintiffs' Response in Opposition to Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment at 11 (emphasis added). 26 . Moreover, if we assume, as seems likely, that all Fiscal Year 1982 funds allocated for CCFP administrative reimbursements have been distributed to the States and sponsoring organizations, and have been spent, any reallocation of those funds would be, to say the least, highly problematic. See Ambach v. Bell, 686 F.2d 974, 986 (D.C.Cir.1982) (<HOLDING>); West Virginia Association of Community Health

A: holding that statutory provisions cannot be read standing alone instead they must be construed in light of the entire act of which they are a part
B: holding that court can consider inadmissible evidence in the context of a motion for preliminary injunction
C: holding in the context of a motion for preliminary injunction that once federal funds are distributed to the states and obligated they cannot be recouped and that it would be impossible  to award the plaintiffs the relief they request if they should eventually prevail on the merits
D: holding preliminary injunction improper where it exceeded the relief sought and granted the same relief which would have been given in a final order of permanent injunction
C.