With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". As noted, the parties now agree that he only needed six credits. Further, Appellant ignores the additional evidence presented by Attorney Alva, including his status as a CLE presenter on capital case litigation, for which he received double CLE credits, and his significant history as one of the most experienced capital trial defense attorneys in the Commonwealth. Based upon this testimony, the trial court, as the sole arbiter of the credibility of Attorney Alva’s testimony, concluded that Attorney Alva possessed the six hours of capital case CLE credit he needed at the time of his entry of appearance in September, 2002, and given the facts of record, we see nothing upon which to disturb that factual finding. See, e.g., Commonwealth v. Fahy, 512 Pa. 298, 516 A.2d 689, 694-95 (1986) (<HOLDING>). Concerning whether the trial court violated

A: holding that the finders of fact are free to believe all some or none of the evidence presented to it and are further the sole resolvers of issues of credibility decisions made by finders of fact in these regards will not be disturbed on appeal
B: holding jury as judge of credibility may believe all some or none of the testimony
C: holding that rulings on admissibility of evidence are within the discretion of the trial court and will not be disturbed absent a showing of abuse of that discretion
D: holding jury is sole judge of witness credibility and may believe some witnesses and refuse to believe others
A.