With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". the person an opportunity to clear his name.” Codd, 429 U.S. at 627, 97 S.Ct. 882. Due process guarantees only “an opportunity to be heard at a meaningful time and in a meaningful manner.” Tibbetts v. State Acc. Ins. Fund Corp., No. CIV. 06-503-AC, 2008 WL 4144441, at *6 (D.Or. Sept. 4, 2008) (quoting Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319, 333, 96 S.Ct. 893, 47 L.Ed.2d 18 (1976)). Despite Hoy’s contentions, there is no Ninth Circuit case which requires a name-clearing hearing include the formal, trial-like procedures he requested. See Vanelli, 667 F.2d at 780 (explaining the panel did “not reach the question whether under these [post-termination] circumstances there is necessarily a right to cross-examine ... witnesses.”); see also Chilingirian v. Boris, 882 F.2d 200, 205 (6th Cir.1989) (<HOLDING>). In sum, Hoy has failed to show he was

A: holding that due process requirements were satisfied where the plaintiff had opportunity to hear and crossexamine all adverse witnesses and to attempt to rebut their claims of insubordination and mishandling of funds
B: holding that where appellant was put on notice of disciplinary charges against him and was afforded opportunity to respond to boards recommendation demands of due process were satisfied
C: holding that the district court did not err in continuing the trial without defendant when the trial had commenced in defendants presence he vigorously expressed his desire to be absent he was given ample opportunity to change his mind despite the disturbance he had created he had competent counsel and he knew of his right to be present
D: holding that a nameclearing hearing for a terminated city attorney satisfied due process even though he was not allowed to crossexamine witnesses because he had ample opportunity to refute the charges against him
D.