Instructions: In this task, you will be shown a prompt from a judicial decision and multiple holding statements derived from citations following text in a legal decision. Holdings represent the governing legal rule when the law is applied to a particular set of facts. There are five answer choices for each citing text. The correct answer is the holding statement that corresponds to the citing text. The four incorrect answers are other holding statements. You should find the correct option. There is a <HOLDING> token in the position of the citing text prompt where the holding statement was extracted.
Input: and should reject the prior circuit opinion as having been effectively overruled." 335 F.3d 889, 893 (9th Cir.2003) (en banc). We adopt the Third Circuit's Smith test, which retains Reves' operation or management test in its definition of the underlying substantive 1962(c) violation, but removes any requirement that the defendant have actually conspired to operate or manage the enterprise herself. Under this test, a defendant is guilty of conspiracy to violate 1962(c) if the evidence showed that she "knowingly agreefd] to facilitate a scheme which includes the operation or management of a RICO enterprise." Smith, 247 F.3d at 538. Schoenberg's role in the activities of the Erne enterprise is enough to justify her 1962(d) conspiracy conviction. See Howard, 208 F.3d at 751 (<HOLDING>) (quoting Baumer v. Pachl, 8 F.3d 1341, 1346
Holding statements: (A) holding that the notion of enterprise conspiracy has largely rendered the old distinction between single conspiracy and multiple conspiracy irrelevant to rico conspiracy charges (B) holding that the conspiracy theory of personal jurisdiction requires that the outofstate coconspirator was or should have been aware of the acts performed in the forum state in furtherance of the conspiracy (C) holding that in addition to the general conspiracy principles mentioned in salinas a defendant must also have been aware of the essential nature and scope of the enterprise and intended to participate in it (D) holding that res judicata barred conspiracy claim against defendant even though defendant had not been a party to the prior action because the civil conspiracy claim should have been adjudicated in a prior action and defendant as an alleged participant in the conspiracy would have been indispensable party to that adjudication (E) holding that a conspiracy claim must contain supportive factual allegations describing the general composition of the conspiracy some or all of its broad objectives and the defendants general role in the conspiracy
Output:
(C)