With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". than in this case. As noted above, this Court’s decision in Commonwealth v. McDermond, 127 Pa.Cmwlth. 17, 560 A.2d 901 (1989) applies here. 22 . At oral argument, Appellant's counsel contended that there is no evidence in the record showing what was on the tally sheet and that there could have been a list of the jewelry purchases that Appellant planned to make. The tally sheet was not admitted into evidence for inspection. Thus, the trial court should not have relied on it. However, Trooper Thompson testified that the police found it in the safe with the $16,350 and that tally sheets are considered gambling paraphernalia. Further, caselaw supports his position. See Commonwealth v. Perry, 254 Pa.Super. 549, 386 A.2d 86 (1978); Sugalski v. Cochran, 365 Pa.Super. 370, 529 A.2d 1104 (1987) (<HOLDING>). Once the Commonwealth put forth this

A: holding that where issues were not considered by the bia remand is appropriate
B: recognizing that totality of circumstances must be considered in determining permissible inferences
C: recognizing that the governments failure to prevail is a factor that may be considered
D: recognizing that a tally sheet is considered gambling paraphernalia
D.