With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". (“FmHA”) administered these loans. See Pittsburg County Rural Water Dist. No. 7 v. City of McAlester, 358 F.3d 694, 701 (10th Cir.2004) ("Pittsburg County”). Since 1994, however, the Department of Agriculture has operated this loan program, see id. at 701 n. 1, through its Rural Utilities Service. See Rural Water Dist. No. 1. Ellsworth County v. City of Wilson, 243 F.3d 1263, 1269 n. 3 (10th Cir.2001) (citing 7 C.F.R. § 1780.3). 2 . In 1987, the USDA sold the first four of these loans to Community Program Loan Trust 1987A, a special purpose Massachusetts business trust. That fact, however, does not affect the questions we certify here to the Oklahoma Supreme Court. See Moongate Water Co. v. Butterfield Park Mut. Domestic Water Ass’n, 291 F.3d 1262, 1265-67 (10th Cir.2002) (<HOLDING>); see also Sequoyah County Rural Water Dist.

A: holding that a creditor for advances or loans in money made to the owner and applied to the use of a vessel has no privilege allowed him by law because he is not subrogated to the rights of those whose privileged claims have been paid out of the money loaned
B: holding that under minnesota law refinancing and consolidation of purchase money loans did not destroy their purchase money character for bankruptcy lien avoidance purposes
C: holding that a defendants goodfaith belief that he intended to repay the loans he procured through misrepresentation was not a defense to wire fraud
D: holding transfer of usda loans to private lenders did not extinguish a rural water districts indebted on those loans for purposes of  1926b
D.