With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". in 1994 and 2000 to which he pled guilty. He collaterally attacks those convictions, arguing that the state of Colorado violated his constitutional right to counsel. Once the government has proven the fact of conviction, the defendant bears the burden of proving the conviction was constitutionally infirm. United States v. Charles, 389 F.3d 797, 799 (8th Cir.2004). Banks presented no such evidence. He relied exclusively upon the presentence report, which indicates that Banks acted pro se with regard to one of his two 1994 convictions. As to the 2000 convictions, the report states, “Attorney representation is unknown.” Even assuming he was not represented when he pled guilty, that fact alone does not establish a constitutional violation. See United States v. Abdul-Aziz, 486 F.3d 471, 474 (<HOLDING>). Since Banks did not testify, offer any

A: holding that a parents statutory right to counsel in termination proceedings guarantees the right to effective counsel
B: recognizing that the sixth amendment guarantees a defendant the right to counsel and the right to waive counsel
C: holding that the sixth amendment right to counsel embodies the right to effective assistance of counsel
D: holding that a criminal defendant has a sixth amendment right to counsel at trial
B.