With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". more than 5 kilograms of cocaine or 50 grams of crack cocaine,” as alleged in Count One. (Appellant Brown’s Br. 16.) Again, Brown has failed to support his contention with any citation to the record. The record shows that the prosecution presented evidence that he possessed more than this amount of crack cocaine. Bethea testified that he sold Brown a minimum of 18 grams of crack cocaine once a week for seven to eight months. Based on Bethea’s testimony, a rational trier of fact could reasonably infer that Brown had over 500 grams of crack cocaine in his possession. Furthermore, due to the repeated nature of the transactions and the large quantities involved, a rational trier of fact could infer a corresponding conspiracy to distribute the cocaine. See Johnson, 889 F.2d at 1035-36 (<HOLDING>). D Brown further maintains that the district

A: holding that an agreement on the one side to sell and on the other to buy does not constitute a conspiracy even if the buyer intends to resell the drugs so long as the buyer and seller do not have an agreement to further distribute the drugs
B: holding that evidence tending to show knowing participation in the conspiracy is sufficient to sustain conspiracy conviction
C: holding that a close relationship between alleged conspirators and repeated large volume transactions were sufficient to establish a conspiracy
D: holding that while a simple buy and sell transaction is not sufficient for proof of a conspiracy repeated transactions for large quantities are sufficient to support an inference that the buyer and seller were engaged in a conspiracy
D.