With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". concerns hotel guests. The information does not, on its face, appear confidential or “private” from the perspective of the hotel operator. We have already held that hotel guests do not have a reasonable expectation of privacy in guest registry information once they have provided it to the hotel operator. United States v. Cormier, 220 F.3d 1103, 1108 (9th Cir.2000). We noted that the information at issue in that case, the guest’s name and room number, was not “highly personal information.” Id. We also noted that once the guest has voluntarily revealed factual information to the hotel in the process of checking in, he can no longer claim a reasonable expectation of privacy in that information, citing United States v. Miller, 425 U.S. 435, 441-43, 96 S.Ct. 1619, 48 L.Ed.2d 71 (1976) (<HOLDING>). Cormier, 220 F.3d at 1108. The Patels

A: holding that a bank customer did not have a reasonable expectation of privacy in records maintained by the bank
B: holding bank clients had no legitimate expectation of privacy in banking information revealed to a third party
C: holding a bank officer who informed a third party that it would be safe to extend 8000 credit to bank customer although customer did not have an open account at the bank could be held liable for the material misrepresentation
D: holding that bank had right to set off funds in a customers account against debt that the bank customer had incurred as a surety or guarantor
A.