With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". of discretion. González-De-Blasini, 377 F.3d at 89. We conclude that the district court did not do so in dismissing the appellants’ supplemental state law claims. AFFIRMED. Costs to appellees. 1 . Although this final sentence was omitted in the original Spanish language contract, the certified translation of the Phase II contract erroneously contained this sentence, see JA 103, 118, when in fact, only the Phase I contract contains this sentence in the original Spanish version, see JA 55, 73. The district court correctly noted this error. Add. 2 n.4. 2 . We need not decide in this case whether a contractual agreement to arbitrate § 1983 claims would be enforceable. See generally, Gilmer v. Interstate/Johnson Lane Corp., 500 U.S. 20, 35, 111 S.Ct. 164 271 F.3d 1060, 1070 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (<HOLDING>); Unger v. Nat’l Residents Matching Program,

A: holding that the aafes was an agency under the apa where by statute its contracts were considered contracts with the federal government and any judgments against it were paid out of the federal treasury
B: holding that at will contracts of employment are subject to tortious interference with contracts claims
C: holding that the government was not bound by its waivers in three prior contracts
D: holding that tjaking claims rarely arise under government contracts because the government acts in its commercial or proprietary capacity in entering contracts rather than in its sovereign capacity accordingly remedies arise from the contracts themselves rather than from the constitutional protection of private property rights
D.