In the

United States Court of Appeals

For the Seventh Circuit

No. 18-1931

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.

JOHN L. O’LEARY, IV,

Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the 

Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division.

No. 14 CR 00429-5 — Robert M. Dow, Jr., Judge.

ARGUED FEBRUARY 20, 2020 — DECIDED APRIL 27, 2020

Before BAUER, EASTERBROOK, and MANION, Circuit Judges.

BAUER, Circuit Judge. John L. O’Leary, IV, and his codefendants operateda crackcocaine distributionbusiness from

2010 to 2014. O’Leary sold crack cocaine rocks to customers,

collected money, and looked out for police. Each packet of

cocaine contained 30 rocks, priced at $10 per rock. Each

distributor received about one to eight packets daily, depend-
2 No. 18-1931

ent on demand and favor in the operation, retaining a $100

profit and remitting the remaining $200 to the operation. As a

preferred distributor, O’Leary received more packets than

others.

Afterthe grand jury was presented with detailed testimony

about the operation and his involvement, it indicted O’Leary.

He elected to have a bench trial. The government presented a

variety of evidence in support of the charges including

O’Leary’s stipulations,the grandjurytestimony, sixintercepted

phone calls, a map of the area where the distributions took

place, and 23 grams of seized cocaine. The parties stipulated

that O’Leary had knowingly sold .4 grams of crack cocaine to

an undercover officer on both April 9, 2014, and April 25, 2014.

The government presented six wire tapped telephone recordings of O’Learymaking incriminating statements. O’Leary was

also present when co-conspirators sold crack cocaine packets.

O’Leary was found guilty and he was sentenced to 120 months

in prison.

O’Leary appeals, contending the government didnot prove

beyond a reasonable doubt the relevant quantity of 280 grams

of cocaine. For the following reasons, we affirm.

DISCUSSION

We review sufficiency of the evidence challenges at a bench

trial underjury trial standards. United States v. Wasson, 679 F.3d

938, 949 (7th Cir. 2012). We will only overturn the verdict if no

rational trier of fact would have found the defendant guilty

beyond a reasonable doubt after viewing the evidence in the

light most favorable to the government. United States v. Doody,

600 F.3d 752, 754 (7th Cir. 2010). We do not reweigh the
No. 18-1931 3

evidence and may uphold verdicts entirely based on circumstantial evidence. United States v. Kruse, 606 F.3d 404, 408 (7th

Cir. 2010).

The government must prove beyond a reasonable doubt

that O’Leary knowingly or intentionally distributed 280

grams or more of a substance containing a cocaine base. 21

U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1) and (b)(1)(A)(iii). During the bench trial,

the government presented O’Leary’s grand jury testimony, six

wiretapped calls, and various stipulations. O’Leary argues that

the government’s reliance on his grand jury statement should

be disregarded because critical aspects of his statement were

not corroborated. However, as a whole, the evidence establishes O’Leary’s grand jury statement was reliable.

Alone, an uncorroborated confession is generally insufficient to support a conviction; the government must provide

“substantial independent evidence which would tend to

establish the trustworthiness of the statement.” Opper v. United

States, 348 U.S. 84, 93 (1954). All elements must be established

by independent evidence or corroborated admissions. Smith v.

United States, 348 U.S. 147, 156 (1954). For instance, independent evidence may bolster the confession and prove the offense

through O’Leary’s statements. Id. The government meets its

burden by introducing substantial evidence supporting key

assertions in the confession, providing an evidentiary basis for

finding the statement as a whole is trustworthy. Id. at 157.

O’Leary detailed his knowledge and understanding of the

operation along with his involvement during his grand jury

statement. He estimated that he received four packs at a time

and each pack contained roughly 3 grams. The operation sold
4 No. 18-1931

approximately 78 kilograms between 2010-2014. By his own

account, O’Leary would have distributed 280 grams of crack

cocaine in about 24 days.

Multiple aspects of O’Leary’s grand jury statement were

corroborated by independent evidence including the stipulations and the wiretapped telephone calls. The stipulations and

calls provide this substantial evidence, identifying O’Leary as

a distributor andthe packets being sold that contained cocaine,

the amount of drugs in the packets, the place of the conspiracy,

the status of drug sales and price, and the frequency of sales.

Furthermore, the law does not limit O’Leary’s guilt to the

quantities he sold alone, but rather, to the entire operation.

O’Leary may be found guilty of offenses committed by coconspirators, evenif he neitherparticipatednorhadknowledge

of the substantive offense. United States v. Pisman, 443 F.3d 912,

913 (7th Cir. 2006). Because the conspiracy sold about 60 grams

of crack cocaine daily, the 280 grams of crack cocaine quantity

was satisfied within 5 days.

The government provided substantial evidence that

corroborated O’Leary’s grand jury testimony sufficient to

prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the conspiracy involved

at least 280 grams of crack cocaine.

CONCLUSION

We AFFIRM the district court’s finding that the government’s evidence sufficiently sustains O’Leary’s conviction.