With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". S.Ct. 141, 116 L.Ed.2d 108 (1991). 3 . The facts alleged in Ms. Goren's complaint are different from those we evaluated in MCM Partners, Inc. v. Andrews-Bartlett & Assocs., Inc., 62 F.3d 967, 977-79 (7th Cir.1995). In that case, the plaintiff alleged an "association-in-fact" enterprise consisting of several defendants and pursued RICO claims against "lower rung" members of the enterprise despite the fact that they had merely implemented the decisions of other members of the enterprise. The district court dismissed the claims against those defendants because, in its view, they did not play any role in the direction of the enterprise. We reversed and held that the defendants could be held liable because they had knowingly implemented the decisions of upper management and thereby part (<HOLDING>); University of Md. at Baltimore v. Peat,

A: holding that defendant who was associated with the enterprise and engaged in a pattern of racketeering activity when he repeatedly violated the antifraud provisions of the securities laws was not liable under  1962c because he had no part in directing the enterprises affairs
B: holding that plaintiffs allegation that defendant engaged in multiple instances of mail and wire fraud did not allege pattern of racketeering activity with sufficient particularity
C: holding that to prevail under civil rico plaintiff must prove that defendants participated in the conduct of an enterprise through a pattern of racketeering activity
D: holding that to constitute an enterprise under rico the enterprises structure must provide some mechanism for controlling and directing the affairs of the group on an ongoing rather than an ad hoc basis
A.