With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". with adequate information concerning the nature of his plea and his constitutional and statutory rights. He also contended that he pleaded guilty without the advice of counsel. [¶ 4.] The written records relating to the 2005 plea indicated that Wolf had waived his statutory and constitutional rights, including his right to counsel. There were, however, no recordings or transcripts of the 2005 proceedings. The circuit court ruled that because there was no transcript showing, the colloquy between Wolf and the court, Wolfs advisement and waiver of rights records were insufficient to establish that his plea was voluntary, that he understood the consequences of pleading guilty, and that he waived his Boykin rights. See Boykin v. Alabama, 395 U.S. 238, 89 S.Ct. 1709, 23 L.Ed th Cir.1999) (<HOLDING>); United States v. Allen, 153 F.3d 1037,

A: holding petitioner cannot claim he was denied right to assistance of counsel when he knowingly and voluntarily decided to represent himself
B: holding that a prior conviction in a georgia state court was appropriately used to qualify the defendant as a career offender because he failed to prove he did not knowingly and voluntarily waive his right to counsel
C: holding that the defendants prior conviction was not obtained in violation of his right to counsel because he had the opportunity for appointed counsel at public expense
D: holding that one must voluntarily and intelligently waive the right to counsel
B.