unimaginable that all government agencies would be required to provide a hearing before they take any action that is arguably inconsistent with a contract.” Id.; see, e.g., S & D Maintenance Co. v. Goldin, 844 F.2d 962, 966 (2d Cir.1988) (“An interest in enforcement of an ordinary commercial contract with a state is qualitatively different from the interests the Supreme Court has thus far viewed as ‘property’ entitled to procedural due process protection.”); Suburban Mortg. Assocs. v. Dep’t of Housing & Urban Dev., 480 F.3d 1116, 1128 (Fed.Cir.2007) (“A claim that a government agency has violated a party’s right to due process by refusing performance under a contract is substantively indistinguishable from a breach of contract claim.”); Roth v. King, 449 F.3d 1272, 1284 (D.C.Cir.2006) (<HOLDING>); Redondo-Borges v. HUD, 421 F.3d 1, 10 (1st
holding that there is no due process right to appellate review holding that there is no federal or colorado constitutional right to postconviction counsel but there is a limited statutory right holding that there is no valid property right for lawyers previously serving as public defenders to continue doing so holding that there is no constitutional right to appeal a criminal conviction recognizing that a claim is an assertion of a right and if there is no assertion of a right there is no claim to deduct