With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". not merely a ‘conspiracy to conspire’ as alleged by appellants, but is an overall conspiracy to violate a substantive provision of RICO Thus, the underlying acts of racketeering in a RICO conspiracy are not considered to be the objects of the conspiracy, but simply conduct that is relevant to the central objective — participating in a criminal enterprise. The existence of relevant conduct is determined at sentencing by a preponderance of the evidence. See, e.g., United States v. Voyles, 995 F.2d 91, 93 n. 3 (6th Cir.1993). At resentencing, then, the district court would only be required to find that the defendants conspired to murder Bowman by a preponderance of the evidence in order for this offense to be used to calculate the defendants’ base offense level. See Carrozza, 4 F.3d at 80 (<HOLDING>); United States v. Ruggiero, 100 F.3d 284, 291

A: holding that best interest of child need only be proven by a preponderance of the evidence
B: holding that prior convictions relevant only to the sentencing of an offender found guilty of the charged crime do not need to be charged in an indictment or proven to a jury beyond a reasonable doubt
C: holding that uncharged conduct may be considered at sentencing when that conduct is proven by a preponderance of the evidence
D: holding in the context a rico conspiracy that the applicability of relevant conduct need only be proven by a preponderance of the evidence not beyond a reasonable doubt
D.