With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". connected to a clearly identified official act occurred. To the extent he does so, I would leave that issue to collateral review because the record on that point is not sufficiently developed to permit review and resolution of the issue. See United States v. Robinson, 967 F.2d 287, 290-91 (9th Cir.1992). 3 . Other circuits have either eviscerated or eliminated the potency of a multiple conspiracy defense to a RICO conspiracy indictment. See United States v. Carrozza, 4 F.3d 70, 79 (1st Cir.1993) (stating that a series of agreements that under pre-RICO law would constitute multiple conspiracies could under RICO be tried as a single enterprise conspiracy if the defendants have agreed to commit a substantive RICO offense); United States v. Ruggiero, 726 F.2d 913, 923 (2d Cir.1984) (<HOLDING>); United States v. Sutherland, 656 F.2d 1181,

A: holding that conspiracies can serve as predicate acts for a rico 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 the notion of enterprise conspiracy has largely rendered the old distinction between single conspiracy and multiple conspiracy irrelevant to rico conspiracy charges
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.