With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". 899 F.2d 940, 944 (10th Cir.1990). A United States District Court in the District of Massachusetts, having canvassed First Circuit law in the area, agreed that occasional violations of prison regulations governing the reading of prisoners’ legal mail did not violate the Sixth Amendment. See Thomas v. Rufo, Civ. A. No. 92-10261-Z, 1994 WL 175047, at *2 (D.Mass. Apr.20, 1994) (concluding nonetheless that 35 instances of improper handling of legal mail demonstrates that a reasonable fact-finder could find deliberate indifference, and, therefore, declining to rule that defendants were entitled to qualified immunity). Some courts have required the prisoner to show that that such searches denied him his right of access to a court. See Oliver v. Fauver, 118 F.3d 175, 178 (3d Cir.1997) (<HOLDING>); Rodriguez v. Coughlin, 795 F.Supp. 609,

A: holding that the plaintiff must prove that the end users directly infringed its patent in order to succeed on its claim of contributory infringement
B: holding that a defendant must show actual prejudice to succeed on an ineffective assistance of counsel claim
C: holding that prisoner must demonstrate that interference with his legal mail actually injured him in order to succeed on a righttocourtaccess claim
D: holding a movant must demonstrate that it exercised due diligence in obtaining the information to succeed on a motion brought under 60b2
C.