With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". Sentencing Guidelines, vacated and remanded for resentencing consistent with United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220, 125 S.Ct. 738, 160 L.Ed.2d 621 (2005). See United States v. Williams, 227 Fed.Appx. 307 (4th Cir.2007) (unpublished). On remand, the district court imposed a 360-month variance sentence and Williams timely appealed. Williams claims that the district court erred when it calculated his Guidelines range without a jury finding the facts supporting the Guidelines range beyond a reasonable doubt. Williams also asserts that the district court erred by failing to instruct the jury that it must find that the drug quantities contained in the conspiracy were reasonably foreseeable to Williams, as required by United States v. Collins, 415 F.3d 304, 311-15 (4th Cir. 2005) (<HOLDING>). Finding no reversible error, we affirm. We

A: holding that the elements of a drug conspiracy under 21 usc  846 do include an overt act requirement
B: holding that in order for a trial court to determine which of the three graduated penalty subsections of 21 usc  841b applies to defendants convicted of a  846 drug conspiracy the jury must be instructed to determine the threshold quantity of drugs attributable to each conspiracy defendant on trial
C: holding that the sentencing court erred in failing to make a factual determination as to the amount of drugs attributable to the defendant after his participation in the charged conspiracy
D: holding that when a district court determines drug quantity for the purpose of sentencing a defendant convicted of participating in a drugtrafficking conspiracy the court is required to make an individualized finding as to drug amounts attributable to or foreseeable by that defendant
B.