With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". common observation, without the legal authority to do so. Id. at 368-69, 597 S.E.2d at 294. But to prove his guilt for the second charge, the Commonwealth had to show that he had a prior felony conviction and that he knowingly and intentionally possessed or transported the gun. Id. In this case, appellant’s conduct supported convictions for both driving under the influence and aggravated involuntary manslaughter. First, the time and situs of the acts were different for each offense. The moment appellant began to operate his vehicle while intoxicated, he was guilty of driving under the influence. See Code § 18.2-266. It was not until he struck and killed White, some distance from where he began driving, that he committed manslaughter. Cf. Londono, 40 Va.App. at 395, 579 S.E.2d at 649-50 (<HOLDING>). Next, each act had a distinct victim. The

A: holding that the topic of economic wellbeing of the commonwealth would turn the germaneness requirement into a nullity
B: holding evidence was not newly discovered because the underlying facts were well within the partys knowledge prior to the district courts entry of judgment
C: holding that school districts do not share in the commonwealth of pennsylvanias eleventh amendment sovereign immunity because they are not alter egos of the commonwealth
D: holding the appellant was guilty of transporting illegal substances into the commonwealth the moment he crossed the border into virginia which took place well before they were discovered
D.