With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". Furthermore, we are confident that the City does not contemplate returning to its prior zoning ordinance, given our strict disapproval of this type of governmental “flip-flopping.” See Jews for Jesus v. Hillsborough County Aviation Auth., 162 F.3d 627, 630 (11th Cir.1998). In such an instance, the courthouse door would remain open for reinstatement of such a law suit. Id. We are convinced that since the City harbors no intentions of returning to the prior zoning ordinance this case does not fall within an exception that would require us to retain jurisdiction. REVERSED and REMANDED, with instructions to DISMISS for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. 1 . In addition to this case, National also filed a second suit against the Ci 02 S.Ct. 867, 869, 70 L.Ed.2d 855 (1982) (per curiam) (<HOLDING>); Kremens v. Bartley, 431 U.S. 119, 128-29, 97

A: holding that the challenge to a university regulation was moot because the regulation had been substantially amended
B: holding that pma process is not specific regulation because the requirements are not contained in formal regulation
C: holding that where a regulation could not fairly be read to have spoken at all on an issue an agencys proposed interpretation of the regulation as it pertained to that issue was not a reasonable interpretation of the regulation
D: holding that interpretation of regulation by va that conflicted with plain meaning of regulation not entitled to deference
A.