With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". his jurisdiction when he reduced the officer’s suspension to a period of time not authorized by the Act and ordered back pay during the time the officer was suspended contrary to the Act. Kelley, 309 S.W.3d at 546-50 (also holding hearing examiner exceeded his jurisdiction by demoting the officer below his prior rank, which was outside the remedies available to the hearing examiner under the Act). The intermediate courts of appeals that have addressed allegations that a hearing examiner exceeded his jurisdiction have required the city to establish that the examiner acted outside the scope of the Act or violated a specific requirement of the Act. See, e.g., City of Beaumont v. Mathews, No. 09-10-00198-CV, 2011 WL 3847338, at *2 (Tex.App.-Beaumont Aug. 31, 2011, no pet.) (mem. op.) (<HOLDING>); Miller v. City of Houston, 309 S.W.3d 681,

A: holding that district court acted within its discretion in deciding nonfrivolous  2255 motion without an evidentiary hearing
B: holding hearing examiner acted contrary to the act thereby exceeding his jurisdiction by reinstating firefighter without an evidentiary hearing where notice given to firefighter did state the charged acts
C: holding no evidentiary hearing was required where the affidavits of the defendant and his wife were directly contradicted by the defendants sworn testimony during the plea hearing
D: holding that this court had jurisdiction over an appeal from a trial court order which remanded the case so that a new hearing examiner could be appointed and a new hearing conducted where the appellant raised the issue of commingling of prosecutorial and adjudicative functions during the original hearing
B.