With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". as the District’s, statute. Federal courts, including the Supreme Court, have long recognized that the federal conspiracy statute encompasses two types of conspiracies: (1) a conspiracy to defraud the United States government or agency; and (2) a conspiracy to commit a specific-offense against the United States. See United States v. Jackson, 33 F.3d 866, 870 (7th Cir. 1994) (“As the language of the [federal conspiracy] statute indicates, there are two different conspiracies with which a defendant can be charged under § 371—a conspiracy ‘to commit any offense against the United States,' or a conspiracy ‘to defraud the United States.’” (internal quotation marks omitted) (emphasis in original)); see also Dennis v. United States, 384 U.S. 855, 863, 86 S.Ct. 1840, 16 L.Ed.2d 973 (1966) (<HOLDING>). Turning to the specifics of this case, the

A: holding that the jury would have no problem separating the actions of the individual defendants where there were only four defendants and two separate conspiracies
B: recognizing the two different types of conspiracies under the federal statute
C: holding that the conviction should be affirmed despite the existence of two conspiracies where the indictment charged only one because this variance did not prejudice the defendant
D: holding that congress intended to allow multiple punishments for rico conspiracies and conspiracies to commit the underlying predicate offense even though the offenses were the same under the blockburger test
B.