With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". Bowen v. Massachusetts, 487 U.S. 879, 914, 108 S.Ct. 2722, 101 L.Ed.2d 749 (1988) (citing United States v. Jones, 131 U.S. 1, 9 S.Ct. 669, 33 L.Ed. 90 (1889)). While this Court has concurrent jurisdiction for certain claims seeking $10,000 or less pursuant to the “Little Tucker Act,” see 28 U.S.C. § 1346(a), when a claimant seeks more than $10,000 on a contract claim against the government, the Court of Federal Claims has exclusive jurisdiction. See Greenhill v. Spellings, 482 F.3d 569, 572 (D.C.Cir.2007); Schmidt, 696 F.Supp.2d at 60. This Circuit has repeatedly held that disputes regarding settlement agreements with federal agencies are governed by the Tucker Act. See Greenhill v. Spellings, 482 F.3d 569, 576 (D.C.Cir.2007); Hansson v. Norton, 411 F.3d 231, 232 (D.C.Cir.2005) (<HOLDING>); Brown v. United States, 389 F.3d 1296, 1297

A: holding that the district court was not divested of subject matter jurisdiction upon the dismissal of the plaintiffs federal claims
B: holding that this court generally treats settlement agreements as contracts subject to the exclusive jurisdiction of the court of federal claims
C: holding that at will contracts of employment are subject to tortious interference with contracts claims
D: holding that the court of federal claims lacked jurisdiction over claims arising from the violation of a criminal statute
B.