With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". warning that his subsequent reliance on nonpublic information in purchasing DPRC stock was willful, that is, done with an awareness that his actions were unlawful under the securities laws. The majority concludes otherwise because it finds “no evidence in the record” that could support an inference that Cass-ese read the Confidentiality Agreement. I cannot agree. Whether a jury can infer that a person has read or is familiar with the contents of a document depends on the totality of the circumstances. See United States v. Brodie, 408 F.3d 123, 156-57 (3d Cir.2005) (concluding that jury could reasonably infer defendant’s familiarity with contents of a memorandum that noted, on its face, that he had been sent a copy); see generally United States v. Soto, 47 F.3d 546, 550 (2d Cir.1995) (<HOLDING>). In this case, the Confidentiality Agreement

A: holding that a totality of the circumstances review applies to determining whether police conduct constitutes a seizure
B: recognizing that totality of circumstances must be considered in determining permissible inferences
C: holding that in determining the voluntariness of a waiver of miranda rights a court must evaluate the totality of the circumstances
D: holding reasonable suspicion is based on totality of circumstances
B.