With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". but there is no suggestion that this advertisement indicated to him, for example, that he would be entitled to the directorship for a specified amount of time, or that he would only be fired for cause. Second, Ezekwo reasonably relied on the hospital’s representations. See Ezekwo, 940 F.2d at 783. Nwaubani suggests that he too relied on the University’s representations, see Pl.’s Further Br. 16 (discussing the higher ranking of his prior university employer), but this purported reliance is at such a high level of generality — “the promise that he would provide leadership for the transformation of AAAS into an academic department[,]” id. at 16 — that it fails to create “a legitimate claim of entitlement to [the position].” Coyne v. City of Somerville, 972 F.2d 440, 443 (1st Cir.1992) (<HOLDING>). Fundamentally, then, the difference between

A: holding that plaintiffs had no vested interest in former interpretation of state law
B: holding erisa plan interpretation is simply one of contract interpretation
C: holding that the existence of the general indiangovernment trust relationship does not create a property interest where one does not otherwise exist
D: holding that no reasonable interpretation of a general directive would create a property interest
D.