With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". Miranda warnings was coercive. Notably, Sturdivant does not claim that the officers failed to advise him of the Miranda warnings before any of the interviews, nor does he claim that he did not understand his rights or that his waivers were not knowingly and voluntarily made. Rather, he takes issue with the fact that Sandoval gave him his Miranda warnings orally during the unrecorded interviews, using a written Miranda waiver only after he confessed. Sturdivant does not direct our attention to any case law, from this court or any other court, in support of his position. At any rate, the absence of a written Miranda waiver did not render Sturdi-vant’s oral waivers or subsequent confessions involuntary products of coercion. See United States v. Murdock, 491 F.3d 694, 700 (7th Cir.2007) (<HOLDING>). Sturdivant next claims that Sandoval promised

A: holding that defendants waiver of counsel when pleading guilty was an implied waiver as to any subsequent proceedings including sentencing four days later
B: holding that comment by officer that case was not deatheligible did not render confession involuntary because comment did not cause defendant to confess
C: holding that agents promise to inform prosecutor of defendants cooperation does not render a subsequent confession involuntary
D: holding officers failure to obtain a written waiver from defendant did not render his oral waiver or subsequent confession involuntary
D.