Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
1 . 29 U.S.C. § 106. 2 . The district court set aside the verdict against Gilmartin for intentional infliction of emotional distress, indicating that it believed the evidence was insufficient. Whether or not the court was correct to do so is an issue we do not reach since the Johnsons' cross-appeal was untimely, infra. We are nonetheless free to take account of the evidence against Gilmartin in deciding whether the evidence as a whole suffices for us to affirm the district court's approval of the jury verdict against the Union. 3 . The legal issue as to whether some of the harassing conduct amounted to assaults turned on whether the conduct embodied a sufficiently imminent threat of bodily harm. See Comrie v. Hinds, No. CV 930521854S, 1996 WL 240419 at *2 (Conn.Super. April 18, 1996) ; 6A C.J.S. Assault & Battery § 4 (1975)
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. 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
B. holding that an overt act may be a verbal statement or a physical act
C. holding proof of an overt act is not required to establish a violation of  846
D. holding that proof of an overt act is not required in a  846 conspiracy
E. holding that an assault cannot be accomplished by words alone there must be an overt act evidencing some corporeal threat
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.