Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
protection against waiving appeals from the ASBCA to this court, that intention must be dis cernable from the text or the legislative history. See Mitsubishi Motors Corp. v. Soler Chrysler-Plymouth, Inc., 473 U.S. 614, 628, 105 S.Ct. 3346, 87 L.Ed.2d 444 (1985) (“We must assume that if Congress intended the substantive protection afforded by a given statute to include protection against waiver of the right to a judicial forum, that intention will be deducible from text or legislative history.”); Brooklyn Sav. Bank v. O’Neil, 324 U.S. 697, 705, 65 S.Ct. 895, 89 L.Ed. 1296 (1945) (“[T]he question of whether the statutory right may be waived depends upon the intention of Congress as manifested in the particular statute.”); McCall v. U.S. Postal Serv., 839 F.2d 664, 667 (Fed.Cir.1988) . Thus, the burden is on Minesen, as the party
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. recognizing that courts will enforce waiver of appeal rights when waiver is knowing and voluntary
B. holding that under the sixth amendment a criminal defendant may waive his right to counsel if that waiver is knowing intelligent and voluntary
C. holding that record did not show voluntary or intelligent waiver
D. holding that an express waiver of the right to appeal the sentence was invalid because the trial court had failed properly to advise the defendant and that the defendant therefore did not waive his right to appeal the legality of his sentence
E. holding that appellant did not show that his voluntary waiver of a statutory right to appeal was contrary to congressional intent
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.