With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". Finding no error, we affirm. I. In a bankruptcy appeal, we review a bankruptcy court’s fact-finding for clear error only. See In re Piazza, 719 F.3d 1253, 1260 (11th Cir.2013). “When the district court has affirmed the bankruptcy court’s findings ... we will apply the clearly erroneous doctrine with particular rigor.” In re Jennings, 533 F.3d 1333, 1338 (11th Cir.2008) (quoting In re Wines, 997 F.2d 852, 856 (11th Cir.1993)). Additionally, when we examine the facts adduced at trial, generally we will not disturb a bankruptcy court’s credibility determinations. See In re Englander, 95 F.3d 1028, 1030 (11th Cir.1996) (requiring a reviewing court to “give due regard” to a bankruptcy court’s credibility judgments); see also United States v. Peters, 403 F.3d 1263, 1270 (11th Cir.2005) (<HOLDING>). Here, to the extent the appellants dispute

A: holding that jurors may consider inconsistencies and deficiencies in testimony when assessing witness credibility
B: recognizing that assessing witness credibility is uniquely the function of the trier of fact
C: holding that the weight and credibility to be given to the opinions of expert witnesses is uniquely within the province of the fact finder  in this instance the trial court citation omitted
D: holding that it is trial courts function to evaluate witness credibility and weigh conflicting evidence
B.