With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". As the trial court noted in denying the motion for judgment of acquittal, it was reasonable for a factfinder to infer that appellant knew the contents of the parcel because, “if you didn’t know what was in the box, you wouldn’t make up something.” See United States v. Branham, 515 F.3d 1268, 1273-74 (D.C.Cir.2008) (rejecting contention that evidence was insufficient because “there was no indication defendant had any idea what was in the package[ ]” where the jury could infer defendant had 1) arranged for the package to be delivered to him at another address, 2) was anticipating its arrival, 3) appeared to try to conceal his connection to the package, and 4) was dealing drugs from the building where the package was delivered); United States v. Calhoun, 49 F.3d 231, 236 (6th Cir.1995) (<HOLDING>). Furthermore, as discussed infra, there was

A: holding evidence sufficient to establish that defendant had knowledge of contraband in parcel even though the parcel was never opened because she inter alia signed a false name for a package that contained a kilogram of cocaine and gave officers false information about the person she claimed was the intended recipient
B: holding that because appellant was not under arrest or detained at time he gave officer a false name the evidence was legally insufficient to support his conviction for failure to identify
C: holding that plaintiff could not establish a prima facie case of discrimination because she was unable to present evidence that she was qualified for the position
D: holding that defendant was seized where the officer told defendant that she knew that he was on probation defendant admitted to the officer that he had given her a false name and defendant was asked for consent to search a backpack because a reasonable inference was that defendant was the subject of a continuing investigation and his or her freedom of movement had been significantly restricted by the officers show of authority
A.