Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
weigh the evidence and draw justifiable inferences of fact.’ ” United States v. Branham, 515 F.3d 1268, 1273 (D.C.Cir.2008) (quoting United States v. Dykes, 406 F.3d 717, 721 (D.C.Cir.2005)). To prove that a defendant entered into a narcotics conspiracy under 21 U.S.C. § 846, the government must prove that he did so knowingly. See, e.g., United States v. Childress, 58 F.3d 693, 708-09 (D.C.Cir.1995). Knowledge alone, however, is not enough. Id. The government must also prove that the defendant had the “specific intent to further the conspiracy’s objective.” Id. at 708; see United States v. Wilson, 160 F.3d 732, 737 (D.C.Cir.1998); United States v. Tarantino, 846 F.2d 1384, 1392 (D.C.Cir.1988); see also Ingram v. United States, 360 U.S. 672, 678, 79 S.Ct. 1314, 3 L.Ed.2d 1503 (1959) . Accordingly, to sustain Gaskins’ conviction,
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that the maximum possible sentence provided by law for conviction of the offense charged is the most important consequence of the plea internal quotation marks omitted
B. holding that a rule 26b application based on ineffective assistance cannot function to save the underlying substantive claim from procedural default internal quotation marks omitted
C. holding with respect to the application of whartons rule that where it is impossible under any circumstances to commit the substantive offense without cooperative action the preliminary agreement between the same parties to commit the offense is not an indictable conspiracy
D. holding that conspiracy to commit a particular substantive offense cannot exist without at least the degree of criminal intent necessary for the substantive offense itself internal quotation marks omitted
E. recognizing that the declaratory judgment act is only procedural and does not create substantive rights internal quotation marks and citations omitted
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.