With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". the evidence must show that each defendant knew, or had reason to know, that his benefits were probably dependent upon the success of the entire operation. Typically, the inference of an overall agreement is drawn from proof of a single objective ... or from proof that the key participants and the method of operation remained constant throughout the conspiracy. The inference that a defendant had reason to believe that his benefits were dependent upon the success of the entire venture may be drawn from proof that the co-conspirators knew of each other’s participation or actually benefitted from the activities of his coconspirators. 189 F.3d at 1080 (internal citations, alterations, and quotation marks omitted); see also United States v. Bibbero, 749 F.2d 581, 587 (9th Cir.1984) (<HOLDING>). Appellants assert that instead of the single

A: holding that the relevant factors include the nature of the scheme the identity of the participants the quality frequency and duration of each conspirators transactions and the commonality of time and goals
B: holding that the relevant time of inquiry is the date of the filing of the complaint
C: holding that duration of spousal maintenance award is measured by the duration of the period of incapacity and survives the death of the obligor
D: holding that the relevant time is the time of the employment decision
A.