was a member of an ongoing conspiracy, it has proven the defendant’s continuous membership in that conspiracy unless and until the defendant withdraws.” Id. Contrary to Agustin’s assertion of the applicable law, the mere fact that a defendant is arrested does not, without more, demonstrate withdrawal from a conspiracy. Instead, the D.C. Circuit has made clear that “[t]o establish withdrawal, a defendant may show that it has taken ‘[a]ffir-mative acts inconsistent with the object of the conspiracy and communicated in a manner reasonably calculated to reach co-conspirators.’ ” Osborn v. Visa Inc., 797 F.3d 1057, 1067 (D.C. Cir. 2015) (quoting United States v. U.S. Gypsum Co., 438 U.S. 422, 464, 98 S.Ct. 2864, 57 L.Ed.2d 854 (1978)); see also Hyde, 225 U.S. at 369-70, 32 S.Ct. 793 (<HOLDING>); United States v. Garrett, 720 F.2d 705, 714
holding that once a defendant becomes associated with a conspiracy he is responsible for all of the acts of the conspiracy even those which occurred before or after his association with the conspiracy holding that in a conspiracy case venue lies where the conspiracy agreement was formed or in any jurisdiction where an overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy was committed by any of the conspirators holding that adefendant remains a member of the conspiracy until he does some act to disavow or defeat the purpose   holding that the notion of enterprise conspiracy has largely rendered the old distinction between single conspiracy and multiple conspiracy irrelevant to rico conspiracy charges 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