With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". v. Pisello, 877 F.2d 762, 764, 765 (9th Cir.1989). The claim that a single conspiracy, rather than multiple conspiracies, has been proved is a question of the sufficiency of the evidence. See United States v. Bibbero, 749 F.2d 581, 586 (9th Cir.1984). In reviewing a claim for insufficient evidence, this court must determine if, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the government, any rational trier of fact could have found a single conspiracy beyond a reasonable doubt. See Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 319, 99 S.Ct. 2781, 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979). Divergences of trial proof from an indictment can range from an insignificant variance constituting harmless error to a constructive amendment that broadens the indictment. See United States v. Olson, 925 F.2d 1170 Cir.1995) (<HOLDING>); United States v. Gonzalez, 921 F.2d 1530,

A: holding that  1962d links in one proceeding a number of otherwise distinct crimes andor conspiracies through the concept of enterprise conspiracy
B: holding that  1962d does not violate the principle prohibiting conviction of multiple conspiracies under an indictment charging a single conspiracy
C: holding that conspiracies can serve as predicate acts for a rico conspiracy
D: holding that two conspiracies existed where the members of the second conspiracy did not know about the first conspiracy did not benefit from the first conspiracy and were connected with the first conspiracy only through a middleman
A.