With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". U.S. at 599, 115 S.Ct. 2357). The indictment in this case sufficiently alleges the elements of obstructing justice under the omnibus clause of § 1503: that Spadoni (1) endeavored (2) corruptly (3) to influence or obstruct the due administration of justice. See 18 U.S.C. § 1503; United States v. Fasolino, 586 F.2d 939, 940 (2d Cir.1978). Whether the government can prove that Spadoni knew his actions were likely to affect the grand jury will depend on the evidence at trial. See United States v. Furkin, 119 F.3d 1276, 1282 (7th Cir.1997). The fact that the indictment alleges that Spadoni believed that the grand jury would likely order the production of the documents does not compel a contrary conclusion. Cf. United States v. Miller, 471 U.S. 130, 136, 105 S.Ct. 1811, 85 L.Ed.2d 99 (1985) (<HOLDING>). Finally, because the statute is not ambiguous

A: holding that an allegation as to the time of the offense is not an essential element of the offense charged in the indictment and within reasonable time limits proof of any date before the return of the indictment and within the statute of limitations is sufficient
B: holding that defendants prior possession of the physical means of committing the crime is some evidence of the probability of his guilt and is therefore admissible
C: holding that an indictment is sufficient as long as it fully and clearly sets out the crime and the elements of the offense even if the evidence consists of proof of other means of committing the same crime
D: holding that if a crime is broadly defined the court can look beyond the elements of the crime
C.