With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". original; citation and internal quotation marks omitted). All reasonable inferences from the evidence presented at trial must be drawn in favor of the Government. Id. First, Wagner argues that the Government failed to prove the existence of a RICO enterprise because, he maintains, it presented no evidence of an enterprise distinct from the alleged predicate acts, and, further, the predicate acts alleged were nothing more than a discontinuous series of individual crimes. Neither of these arguments has merit. Contrary to Wagner’s first argument, neither the Supreme Court nor this Court has required that the Government’s proof of the alleged enterprise be distinct from the racketeering conduct. See, e.g., United States v. Turkette, 452 U.S. 576, 583, 101 S.Ct. 2524, 69 L.Ed.2d 246 (1981) (<HOLDING>); United States v. Indelicato, 865 F.2d 1370,

A: holding that medical expenses must be proven to be both reasonable and necessary
B: holding that  111 establishes three separate crimes each consisting of the elements of the preceding category of crime but adding an element or elements that must be proved to the jury beyond a reasonable doubt resulting in an increased penalty
C: holding that while both the enterprise and pattern of racketeering elements must each be proven the proof used to establish these separate elements may in particular cases coalesce
D: holding elements of rescission are 1
C.