With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". 34 Cal.Rptr.3d 905 (2005). Here, petitioner does not have a criminal history of violence, which tends to show he is suitable for parole, rather than unsuitable. Moreover, the Governor’s finding to the contrary — especially given the length of time between petitioner’s past DUI convictions and the Governor’s reversal of the parole decision, and the fact petitioner’s alcoholism has been in remission for many years — is not supported by any evidence in the record. See Scott, 133 Cal.App.4th at 602-03, 34 Cal.Rptr.3d 905 (no evidence supported Governor’s finding that inmate had a significant criminal history when only prior convictions inmate suffered were misdemeanor reckless driving involving no injury and vandalism); Pirtle v. Cal. Bd. of Prison Terms, 2007 WL 1140817, *15 (E.D.Cal.) (<HOLDING>), adopted by, 2007 WL 1544620 (E.D.Cal. 2007).

A: recognizing that felony and misdemeanor dwi are separate offenses because a prior conviction is an essential element of felony driving while intoxicated but it is not an element of the misdemeanor offense
B: holding no evidence supported boards conclusion that inmates twentyfive year old criminal reeord which consisted of felony and misdemeanor drunk driving offenses and other misdemeanors shows that he would pose a danger to the public if released
C: holding in a case involving a deaf person arrested for drunk driving that calling a drunk driving arrest a program or activity of the county the essential eligibility requirements of which in this case are weaving in traffic and being intoxicated strikes us as a stretch of the statutory language and of the underlying legislative intent
D: holding that a finding of fact is supported by substantial evidence on the record as a whole if it would have been possible for a reasonable jury to reach the boards conclusion
B.