Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
Tanner v. United States, 483 U.S. 107, 107 S.Ct. 2739, 2752, 97 L.Ed.2d 90 (1987). Since the Court could not dismiss Count I on the grounds that the government had failed to allege means necessary to state a violation of § 371 there are no grounds to dismiss because the listed “means and methods” are laid out vaguely. The indictment does state the essential elements of the offense, does allege at least one overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy, and therefore serves to apprise defendants of what they must be prepared to defend. See United States v. Treadwell, 760 F.2d 327, 337 (D.C.Cir.1985), cert. denied, 474 U.S. 1064, 106 S.Ct. 814, 88 L.Ed.2d 788 (1986). No further allegations are required in a § 371 indictment. United States v. Tarvers, 833 F.2d 1068, 1075 (1st Cir.1987) . The indictment puts defendants on notice that
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that where the parties fail to reach an agreement as to the character nature or type of release to be used an essential element of the agreement is not established
B. recognizing requirement that defendant conspired to commit an overt act in state in furtherance of the conspiracy
C. 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
D. 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
E. holding that the essential elements of a  371 indict ment are an agreement to pursue an unlawful object accompanied by an overt act in furtherance of the agreement
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.