With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". the [trial] court and both Kovler and the BAA filed briefs. [The trial] [c]ourt heard oral arguments on March 4, 2010. On March 15, 2010, [the trial] [c]ourt entered an Order dismissing Kovler’s appeal and affirming the BAA. Kovler now appeals. (BAA’s Reproduced Record (R.R.) at 29a.) On appeal, Kovler argues that the BAA’s procedures for adjudicating parking violations are unconstitutional because they deny due process. Kovler also argues that the BAA’s decision is not supported by substantial evidence because the original Ticket is not part of the record. We address, first, Kovler’s argument that the BAA’s procedures for adjudicating parking violations contravene due process. Initially, we not 37 L.Ed.2d 1049 (1997); Gardner v. City of Columbus, Ohio, 841 F.2d 1272 (6th Cir.1988) (<HOLDING>). Kovler’s principal due process argument stems

A: holding chicagos system for adjudicating parking violations satisfied due process
B: holding columbuss procedures for adjudicating parking violations did not contravene due process
C: holding that a state agencys violations of its own internal regulations did not establish a due process violation or otherwise give rise to a constitutional claim
D: holding california postdeprivation recovery procedures satisfy due process despite lack of notice to claimant of recovery procedures
B.