With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". Gil, 204 F.3d 1347, 1350 (11th Cir.2000). Under Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966), a defendant’s incriminating statements made during a custodial interrogation may be used against him at trial as long as those statements were voluntary and the defendant was aware of his rights. “The standard for evaluating the voluntariness of a confession is whether a person ‘made an independent and informed choice of his own free will, possessing the capability to do so, his will not being overborne by the pressures and circumstances swirling around him.’ ” United States v. Castaneda-Castaneda, 729 F.2d 1360, 1362 (11th Cir.1984). Voluntariness is measured by the totality of the circumstances. Id.; see also Palmes v. Wainwright, 725 F.2d 1511, 1516 (11th Cir.1984) (<HOLDING>). A defendant’s lack of understanding regarding

A: recognizing that courts will enforce waiver of appeal rights when waiver is knowing and voluntary
B: holding that defendants waiver of counsel when pleading guilty was an implied waiver as to any subsequent proceedings including sentencing four days later
C: holding that voluntary statements to police initiated by witness are not interrogation and therefore are nontestimonial
D: holding that a defendants statements were voluntary after defendant initially refused to sign waiver but later initiated the contact with police and signed the waiver
D.