With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". of a district court sitting without a jury, appellate courts must constantly have in mind that their function is not to decide factual issues de novo. If the district court’s account of the evidence is plausible in light of the record viewed in its entirety, the court of appeals may not reverse it even though convinced that had it been sitting as the trier of fact, it would have weighed the evidence differently.” (internal quotation marks and citation omitted)); accord Siewe v. Gonzales, 480 F.3d 160, 167-68 (2d Cir.2007). Plaintiffs cannot secure reversal simply by demonstrating that the evidence could support inferences favorable to their claim. Rather, they must show that the evidence permitted no other inferences. See Anderson v. Bessemer City, 470 U.S. at 574, 105 S.Ct. 1504 (<HOLDING>). (1) Plaintiffs’ Failure To Prove that the

A: holding that where there are two permissible views of the evidence the factfinders choice between them cannot be clearly erroneous
B: holding that a court would abuse its discretion by relying on a clearly erroneous assessment of the evidence
C: holding that pretext is subject to the clearly erroneous standard
D: holding that district courts findings were not clearly erroneous where there was  sufficient evidence  that the defendants waiver of his rights was knowing and intelligent
A.