With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". and ‘strongly recommend[ed]’ separate representation.” Id. at 2. Each Defendant thereafter executed a written Waiver of Right to Separate Representation. Dr. Migliaccio argues that such a waiver, based on specific knowledge of a contingent event, becomes void upon the happening of that contingency. We have found no authority to support this proposition. Instead, we look to the totality of the circumstances here — including each informative discussion of joint representation — to determine whether the Defendant’s Sixth Amendment rights have been violated. See Rodriguez, 968 F.2d at 139 (deeming “facts and circumstances” more significant than “the exact words used by the trial judge” to a waiver examination). Cf. United States v. Solomon, 856 F.2d 1572, 1580-81 (11th Cir.1988) (<HOLDING>), cert. denied, 489 U.S. 1070, 109 S.Ct. 1352,

A: holding the rule was not applicable in a pretrial venue hearing
B: holding a pretrial hearing on the waiver of counsel conducted three weeks before trial was the start of the trial stage where there were no changes between the pretrial hearing and the trial
C: holding that the district court cannot refer a matter to a bankruptcy judge under the magistrates act
D: holding magistrates pretrial hearing sufficient under rule 44c and considering the district courts cursory questioning as well
D.