With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". conspiracy and communicated in a manner reasonably calculated to reach co-conspirators.” United States v. U.S. Gypsum Co., 438 U.S. 422, 464, 98 S.Ct. 2864, 57 L.Ed.2d 854 (1978); accord Watson Carpet & Floor Covering, Inc. v. Mohawk Indus., Inc., 648 F.3d 452, 460 (6th Cir. 2011); In re Brand Name Prescription Drugs Antitrust Litig., 123 F.3d 599, 616 (7th Cir.1997). Even where a member of the conspiracy appears to sever ties with other co-conspirators, there is no withdrawal if that member continues to support or benefit from the agreement. See United States v. Eisen, 974 F.2d 246, 269 (2d Cir.1992) (finding no withdrawal from conspiracy where defendant resigned from corrupt firm but continued to receive a portion of profits); United States v. Antar, 53 F.3d 568, 583 (3d Cir.1995) (<HOLDING>), overruled on other grounds, Smith v. Berg,

A: holding that once a defendant becomes associated with a conspiracy he is responsible for all of the acts of the conspiracy even those which occurred before or after his association with the conspiracy
B: holding that resignation from conspiracy is insufficient if the defendant continues to do acts in furtherance of the conspiracy and continues to receive benefits from the conspiracys operations
C: holding criminal conspiracy is sustained where the commonwealth establishes the defendant entered into an agreement to commit or aid in an unlawful act with another person with a shared criminal intent and an overt act was done in furtherance of the conspiracy a coconspirator may commit the overt act and conspirators are liable for acts of the coconspirators committed in furtherance of the conspiracy
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.