Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
to the drug taxing and trafficking conspiracies charged in counts three and four. Even if Appellants had raised an accurate multiple conspiracies challenge to count two, it would be unavailing. The several conspiracies that were predicate acts for the substantive RICO violations of § 1962(c) were also evidence of the overall § 1962(d) conspiracy to violate RICO. What matters for a sufficiency of the evidence inquiry is that there was adequate proof of an overall conspiracy to participate, directly or indirectly, in the conduct of the Erne’s affairs through a pattern of racketeering activity. In this case, the pattern included predicate acts that were themselves constitutive conspiracies. 19 . But cf. Oki Semiconductor Co. v. Wells Fargo Bank, 298 F.3d 768, 774-75 (9th Cir.2002) . Although not explicitly labeled as such, the
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that plaintiff had standing to bring a rico conspiracy claim despite his inability to bring a substantive rico claim
B. holding that the notion of enterprise conspiracy has largely rendered the old distinction between single conspiracy and multiple conspiracy irrelevant to rico conspiracy charges
C. holding it is the mere agreement to violate rico that  1962d forbids it is not necessary to prove any substantive rico violations ever occurred as a result of the conspiracy without mentioning neibels limitations on who may be held liable for rico conspiracy which posit that conspiracy liability is dependent on potential substantive liability if the scheme were successfully completed
D. holding that plaintiffs cannot claim that a conspiracy to violate rico existed if they do not adequately plead a substantive violation of rico
E. holding that conspiracies can serve as predicate acts for a rico conspiracy
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.