With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". a cognizable ground for judicial review of an arbitration award, see UHC Management Co., 148 F.3d at 998 (“ ‘We may not set an award aside simply because ... the arbitrators erred in interpreting the law or in determining the facts.’ ”) (quoting Stroh Container Co., 783 F.2d at 751), and is not cognizable here, because there was no agreement to judicial review of legal determinations. See Alvey, Inc., 132 F.3d at 1212 (rejecting review of an arbitrator’s determination of the legal framework for evaluation of a grievance “[u]nless there is specific controlling language in the collective bargaining agreement”). However, the court will consider whether Hoffman has demonstrated that the arbitration award is in “manifest disregard of the law.” See Val-U Constr. Co., 146 F.3d at 578 (<HOLDING>); Kieman, 137 F.3d at 594 (same). Furthermore,

A: holding that judicial review of arbitration awards is narrow in scope
B: holding that explanations of arbitration awards are not required
C: holding that the statutory grounds for vacatur and modification of arbitration awards may not be supplemented by contract
D: recognizing such a ground for judicial review of arbitration awards in this circuit
D.