the heroin that was seized from the Volkswagen. See United States v. Newsom, 452 F.3d 593, 609 (6th Cir. 2006). However, Proge does not dispute that the evidence was sufficient to lead a rational juror to conclude he was guilty under either a Pinkerton coconspirator liability theory or an aiding-and-abetting theory. See United States v. Martin, 920 F.2d 345, 348 (6th Cir. 1990) (Pinkerton theory). Lastly, to establish a money-laundering conspiracy “the government must prove (1) that two or more persons conspired to commit the crime of money laundering, and (2) that the defendant knowingly and voluntarily joined the conspiracy.” United States v. Prince, 618 F.3d 551, 553-54 (6th Cir. 2010); see also Whitfield v. United States, 543 U.S. 209, 212, 125 S.Ct. 687, 160 L.Ed.2d 611 (2005) (<HOLDING>). There was ample proof that a money-laundering
holding that the elements of a drug conspiracy under 21 usc  846 do include an overt act requirement holding that proof of overt act is not required to support admission of evidence of statement of coconspirator during course of conspiracy holding proof of an overt act is not required to establish a violation of  846 holding that proof of an overt act is not required in a  846 conspiracy holding that an 18 usc  1956h conspiracy does not require proof of an overt act