With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". on that evidence. Conrad, 507 F.3d at 432. There was plenty of evidence—direct and circumstantial—supporting Bantum’s conviction. Multiple co-defendants testified that Bantum participated in two transactions involving multiple kilograms of cocaine. For example, Donerson estimated that he sold about 20 kilograms of cocaine to or through Bantum. R. 311 at 2579, 2595-96, 2602. Additionally, Darwin De- more (Bantum’s contact and another co-conspirator) said that he, Bantum, and Donerson sold a total of eight kilograms in two transactions and split the profits. R. 312 at 2734-40, 2673, 2793. From this evidence alone, a reasonable jury could have found that Bantum conspired to distribute more than five kilograms of cocaine. See United States v. Valdez, 611 Fed.Appx. 330, 335 (6th Cir.2015) (<HOLDING>); United States v. Robinson, 547 F.3d 632, 641

A: holding that a prior conviction for transporting cocaine was probative of the intent required for participation in a separate plan to transport cocaine
B: holding that the defendants presence at two meetings for purchases of large amounts of cocaine was sufficient to establish his participation in the conspiracy
C: holding that circumstantial evidence alone is sufficient to support a cocaine conspiracy conviction
D: holding that the district court made sufficient factual findings and adequately determined the scope of defendants participation in a conspiracy under  1b13 even though the district court did not expressly determine the scope of the defendants participation
B.