With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". based on the jury’s finding that the conspiracy involved at least one kilogram of heroin. V Carbajal also contends that the government presented insufficient evidence to prove that venue in the Eastern District of Texas was proper. Carbajal did not, however, raise a proper objection to venue before the jury’s verdict and therefore waived this issue on appeal. See United States v. Carreon-Palacio, 267 F.3d 381, 390-91 (6th Cir.2001). Even assuming that Carbajal did preserve this issue for appeal, venue in the Eastern District was proper because the government presented evidence that a convicted coconspirator purchased heroin from Car-bajal and resold it in Denton County, which is located in the Eastern District of Texas. See United States v. Pomranz, 43 F.3d 156, 158 (5th Cir.1995) (<HOLDING>). VI Milan, Perez, and Ramos each argue that

A: holding that venue for a conspiracy prosecution was proper in a district where an overt act took place although defendant had never been there and the conspiracy was not formed there
B: holding that venue is proper in any district where any act in furtherance of the conspiracy took place
C: holding that venue is proper in any judicial district in which the corporation is doing business
D: holding that in a conspiracy case venue lies where the conspiracy agreement was formed or in any jurisdiction where an overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy was committed by any of the conspirators
B.