With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". 382 F.3d 500, 506 n. 2 (5th Cir.2004) (en banc). 2 . United States v. Ibarra, 493 F.3d 526, 530 (5th Cir.2007). 3 . 392 U.S. 1, 88 S.Ct. 1868, 20 L.Ed.2d 889 (1968). 4 . Id. at 19-20, 88 S.Ct. 1868. 5 . United States v. Jenson, 462 F.3d 399, 404 (5th Cir.2006). 6 . United States v. Mask, 330 F.3d 330, 334, 337 (5th Cir.2003). 7 . See United States v. Sanchez-Pena, 336 F.3d 431, 441 (5th Cir.2003) (“So long as 'a reasonable person would feel free to decline the officers' requests or otherwise terminate the encounter,' it is consensual.” (quoting United States v. Drayton, 536 U.S. 194, 202, 122 S.Ct. 2105, 153 L.Ed.2d 242 (2002))). 8 . United States v. Brown, 102 F.3d 1390, 1394-97 (5th Cir.1996); see also Ohio v. Robi-nette, 519 U.S. 33, 39-40, 117 S.Ct. 417, 136 L.Ed.2d 347 (1996) (<HOLDING>). 9 . See Sanchez-Pena, 336 F.3d at 443. 10 .

A: holding that compliance with rule 3 is both a mandatory and jurisdictional prerequisite to appeal internal quotation marks omitted
B: holding that a rule requiring an officer to inform detainees that they are free to go before a consent to search is deemed voluntary was inappropriate and that instead the proper inquiiy necessitates a consideration of all the circumstances surrounding the encounter citation and internal quotation marks omitted
C: holding that in determining whether a seizure has occurred a court must consider if in view of all of the circumstances surrounding the encounter a reasonable person would have believed that he or she was not free to leave
D: holding that an encounter is a seizure if in view of all of the circumstances surrounding the incident a reasonable person would have believed that he was not free to leave
B.