With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". in the Fifth Circuit. Because a determination as to what constitutes a protectible property interest is contextual (it can vary according to state law or local regulations), it is not surprising that not all public employees who have remained at the same salary level necessarily fail in this Circuit in their attempt to claim a protectible property interest upon demotion to a different employment position. Indeed, in 1981 the Fifth Circuit held that a government employee who was demoted, but remained at the same salary level, could nevertheless establish a protectible property interest in his job position because there was a mutually-recognized entitlement by reference to local rules and understandings surrounding his employment. Winkler v. County of DeKalb, 648 F.2d 411 (5th Cir.1981) (<HOLDING>). The plaintiff seeks the shelter of Winkler.

A: holding that economic loss rule barred claim for breach of fiduciary duty where plaintiffs claim arose solely as a result of the existence of a contract between the parties
B: holding that the statute of limitations can be tolled where the government fraudulently or deliberately conceals material facts relevant to a plaintiffs claim so that the plaintiff was unaware of their existence and could not have discovered the basis of his claim
C: holding that both saline county and grant county had jurisdiction to try the appellant for murder where the actual killing occurred in one county but the acts requisite to the consummation of the murder and the subsequent disposal of the body occurred in the other county
D: holding that the county code and the conduct of the parties established the existence of rules or mutually explicit understandings supporting the plaintiffs claim of entitlement to his position
D.