Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
drawn, and all facts are viewed, in the government’s favor. United States v. Hansen, 262 F.3d 1217, 1236 (11th Cir.2001). “At least where some corroborative evidence of guilt exists for the charged offense ... and the defendant takes the stand in his own defense, the defendant’s testimony, denying guilt, may establish, by itself, elements of the offense.” United States v. Brown, 53 F.3d 312, 314-15 (11th Cir.1995). To convict Moghaddam under 18 U.S.C. § 371, the government had to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Moghaddam (1) knowingly and voluntarily entered into an agreement with another person to export paddlefísh without the required permits and (2) the agreement was manifested by an overt act. 18 U.S.C. § 371; see United States v. Lafaurie, 833 F.2d 1468, 1470 (11th Cir.1987) . In order to convict Moghaddam under 16 U.S.C.
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding criminal conspiracy is sustained where the commonwealth establishes the defendant entered into an agreement to commit or aid in an unlawful act with another person with a shared criminal intent and an overt act was done in furtherance of the conspiracy a coconspirator may commit the overt act and conspirators are liable for acts of the coconspirators committed in furtherance of the conspiracy
B. holding that a conspiracy is an agreement to commit an illegal act into which the defendant knowingly and voluntary enters and which is manifested by an overt act
C. holding that proof of an overt act is not required in a  846 conspiracy
D. holding that an overt act may be a verbal statement or a physical act
E. recognizing requirement that defendant conspired to commit an overt act in state in furtherance of the conspiracy
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.