Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
and ‘strongly recommend[ed]’ separate representation.” Id. at 2. Each Defendant thereafter executed a written Waiver of Right to Separate Representation. Dr. Migliaccio argues that such a waiver, based on specific knowledge of a contingent event, becomes void upon the happening of that contingency. We have found no authority to support this proposition. Instead, we look to the totality of the circumstances here — including each informative discussion of joint representation — to determine whether the Defendant’s Sixth Amendment rights have been violated. See Rodriguez, 968 F.2d at 139 (deeming “facts and circumstances” more significant than “the exact words used by the trial judge” to a waiver examination). Cf. United States v. Solomon, 856 F.2d 1572, 1580-81 (11th Cir.1988) , cert. denied, 489 U.S. 1070, 109 S.Ct. 1352,
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding a pretrial hearing on the waiver of counsel conducted three weeks before trial was the start of the trial stage where there were no changes between the pretrial hearing and the trial
B. holding magistrates pretrial hearing sufficient under rule 44c and considering the district courts cursory questioning as well
C. holding the rule was not applicable in a pretrial venue hearing
D. holding that the district court cannot refer a matter to a bankruptcy judge under the magistrates act
E. holding that the district courts cursory treatment of a factual matter related to victim payment was adequate under rule 32c1 because the defendant expressed very little interest in pursing his objection
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.