With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". raised the retaliation claim. Id. at 925. The district court dismissed the claim, and we affirmed, finding the administrative determination issue preclusive. Id. at 930-31. This case is quite different. Here, neither the BOR decision nor the termination order addressed the issue of retaliation. The administrative proceedings simply found Avila guilty of the one count in the complaint: “Prior to 2008, you, while on duty, were insubordinate to the department when you failed to submit requests for compensation for overtime that you had worked, as directed through department publications.” The district court thus properly concluded that the agency had not determined the motive for the disciplinary action. See L.A. Police Protective League v. Gates, 995 F.2d 1469, 1474-75 (9th Cir.1993) (<HOLDING>). There is no issue preclusion. Ill Avila

A: holding that a bor determination could not have preclusive effect on the different issue the jury faced
B: holding that previous ordered entered with prejudice did not have preclusive effect
C: holding that a district courts discretionary determination of the amount of restitution a criminal taxevasion defendant had to pay was unnecessary to the judgment and thus could not be given preclusive effect
D: holding that illinois federal court erred in giving preclusive effect to minnesota state courts dismissal of action on statute of limitations grounds based on minnesotas treatment of statutes of limitations as procedural in nature and without preclusive effect
A.