Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
S.Ct. 2267, 2272, 180 L.Ed.2d 60 (2011)). “[C]ourts normally start-and stop-by looking at ‘the fact of conviction and the statutory definition of the prior offense.’ ” United States v. Medina-Almaguer, 559 F.3d 420, 422 (6th Cir.2009) (quoting Taylor v. United States, 495 U.S. 575, 110 S.Ct. 2143, 109 L.Ed.2d 607. 602 (1990)). Sanbria-Bueno was convicted under 21 U.S.C. § 846 for conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute and to distribute heroin in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841. Nevertheless, Sanbria-Bueno contends that the offense was not categorically a “drug trafficking offense” within the meaning of § 2L1.2(b)(l)(A)(i) because a generic conspiracy requires an overt act while § 846 does not. See United States v. Shabani, 513 U.S. 10, 17, 115 S.Ct. 382, 130 L.Ed.2d 225 (1994) . Sanbria-Bueno would have this court apply the
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that an overt act may be a verbal statement or a physical act
B. holding that the elements of a drug conspiracy under 21 usc  846 do include an overt act requirement
C. holding that an 18 usc  1956h conspiracy does not require proof of an overt act
D. holding that proof of overt act is not required to support admission of evidence of statement of coconspirator during course of conspiracy
E. holding proof of an overt act is not required to establish a violation of  846
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.