With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". that the record supports the district court’s finding that Corwell was informed of her limited right of appeal. Although the district court did not discuss the limited right of appeal with Corwell during the plea colloquy, Cornell's plea affidavit adequately described the limits on her right of appeal when it informed her that she would waive her right to appeal her conviction if she pleaded guilty. The district court properly incorporated this affidavit into the record when it questioned Corwell as to whether she had sufficient time to read the affidavit and whether she understood her rights as explained in that document. We accordingly hold that the record supports the district court’s conclusion that Corwell was informed of her limited right of appeal. See Maguire, 830 P.2d at 217 (<HOLDING>). The court of appeals therefore erred when it

A: holding that the district court erred in denying a  2254 petition because it had improperly resolved a disputed factual issue based solely on an affidavit filed by the petitioners attorney and there was no record evidence that corroborated the attorneys affidavit
B: holding that a guilty plea is voluntary and knowing only if the defendant understands the range of allowable punishment
C: holding that a plea affidavit can be incorporated into the record if the district court conducts an inquiry to establish that the defendant understands the affidavit and voluntarily signed it internal quotations omitted
D: holding that an affidavit did not provide probable cause sufficient to validate a warrant where the affidavit stated an incorrect date uncontradicted by any other specific fact in the affidavit
C.