With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". concerned that "a defendant who has available a trial de novo, even after the admission to sufficient facts, may have so little invested in the admission as to make it unreliable as an admission of guilt.” Id. at 12. Many defendants apparently admitted sufficient facts in order to see whether the condition imposed would be "so light as to make the matter not worth contesting.” Id. This led us to "question whether a defendant’s admission to sufficient facts creates an overwhelming likelihood that the defendant has done the deeds to which he or she admitted.” Id. We remanded for fact-finding to determine whether "what happened” in Roberts' prior cases "was in substance an admission of guilt,” which was the applicable guideline standard under § 4A1.2(f). See also Nicholas, 133 F.3d at 134 (<HOLDING>). Both Nicholas and Roberts involved adult, not

A: holding that the defendant waived the right to appeal his sentence including the terms and conditions of his supervised release when he agreed to a plea agreement that said he expressly waives his right to appeal the conviction and sentence imposed on any ground emphasis added
B: holding that when defense counsel withdrew an objection to admission of evidence the defendant waived his right to a review of the courts ruling on appeal
C: holding that waiver of right to appeal sentence unless its was an upward departure barred appeal of sentence within guidelines range
D: holding that a prior admission of sufficient facts was countable even without a sentence being imposed where the defendant had signed a duquette waiver of his right to appeal to the second tier of the massachusetts twotier process under commonwealth v duquette 386 mass 834 438 ne2d 334 342 1982
D.