With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". “[T]he plain language of the regulation sets out ‘inadverten[ce]’ and ‘made for reasons other than lack of work’ as alternative grounds permitting corrective action.” Auer v. Robbins, 519 U.S. 452, 463, 117 S.Ct. 905, 137 L.Ed.2d 79 (1997) (emphasis in original); see also Childers v. City of Eugene, 120 F.3d 944, 947 (9th Cir.1997) (following Auer and holding that “the window of corrections defense should apply where the deductions in question were either inadvertent or made for reasons other than lack of work”) (emphasis in original). The deductions made and corrected by the City were made for disciplinary reasons, which are “reasons other than lack of work” and, thus, are covered by the window of correction. See also Davis v. City of Hollywood, 120 F.3d 1178, 1180-81 (11th Cir.1997) (<HOLDING>); Carpenter v. City & County of Denver, 115

A: holding that an inmates mandamus petition challenging a disciplinary report imposing 15 days disciplinary confinement was a collateral criminal proceeding because the disciplinary confinement limited petitioners ability to earn gain time
B: holding that where the conviction was final the disciplinary commission was not authorized to assume the roles of both an accusatory tribunal and the ultimate determiner of guilt and that the separation of responsibility between the disciplinary board and the disciplinary commission provides constitutional due process
C: holding that a prison disciplinary committee violated inmates rights to procedural due process by refusing to call their witnesses even though the disciplinary hearing took place in the aftermath of a riot and the resulting disciplinary caseload was ex tremely heavy
D: holding window of correction properly invoked by city having broad disciplinary policy permitting suspensions without pay to correct four disciplinary deductions of less than a week
D.