With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". and § 846 drug conspiracy. See United States v. Marolla, 766 F.2d 457, 461 (11th Cir.1985) (explaining that for a § 963 and § 846 drug conspiracy offense, because “conspiracy is an inchoate offense which is complete regardless of whether the object of the conspiracy is achieved, withdrawal is impossible once an overt act is committed.”) (quotation marks omitted and emphasis added). The evidence established that Cauley committed several overt acts: he had numerous telephone conversations and meetings with Somonte; he agreed to hire a crew and indicated that he had done so; he met with Somonte to obtain a van for loading the drugs and to find out the location of the container with the drugs; and he took possession of the van. Cf. United States v. Marable, 574 F.2d 224, 230 (5th Cir.1978) (<HOLDING>). Because it was impossible for Cauley to

A: recognizing requirement that defendant conspired to commit an overt act in state in furtherance of the conspiracy
B: holding that telephone conversations and meetings were overt acts in furtherance of a drug conspiracy
C: holding that proof of an overt act is not required in a  846 conspiracy
D: 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
B.