With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". of Strickland prejudice. 47 . See, e.g., Washington Reply Br. at 7. 48 . While we assume without deciding that Washington could have prevailed on this theory, we note that a “caution” or “lack of total commitment” defense is difficult to successfully mount given the broad liability for drug-conspiracy charges. See United States v. Caraballo-Rodriguez, 726 F.3d 418, 425 (3d Cir. 2013) (en banc) ("To prove a conspiracy, the government must show: (1) a shared unity of purpose; (2) an intent to achieve a common illegal goal; and (3) an agreement to work toward that goal.”); see also Smith v. United States, 568 U.S. 106, 133 S.Ct. 714, 719, 184 L.Ed.2d 570 (2013) (explaining withdrawal from a conspiracy); United States v. Shabani, 513 U.S, 10, 17, 115 S.Ct. 382, 130 L.Ed.2d 225 (1994) (<HOLDING>). 49 .The government notes that no additional

A: holding that proof of an overt act is not required in a  846 conspiracy
B: holding that proof of overt act is not required to support admission of evidence of statement of coconspirator during course of conspiracy
C: recognizing requirement that defendant conspired to commit an overt act in state in furtherance of the conspiracy
D: holding that the elements of a drug conspiracy under 21 usc  846 do include an overt act requirement
A.