Opinion ID: 1387247
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The Existence of; and Christopher Beaver's Participation in, the Price-Fixing Conspiracy

Text: To prevail on his argument that the district court erred by denying his motion for a judgment of acquittal, Christopher Beaver must show that the court incorrectly concluded that there was sufficient evidence to sustain his conviction under the Sherman Antitrust Act. See Fed.R.Crim.P. 29(a); Andreas, 216 F.3d at 670. Although we review Christopher's argument de novo, see United States v. O'Hara, 301 F.3d 563, 569 (7th Cir.2002), he faces a `nearly insurmountable' burden on appeal, United States v. Jackson, 177 F.3d 628, 630 (7th Cir.1999) (quoting United States v. Moore, 115 F.3d 1348, 1363 (7th Cir.1997)). Viewing the evidence presented at trial in the light most favorable to the government, we will overturn Christopher's guilty verdict `only if the record contains no evidence, regardless of how it is weighed,' from which the jury could have concluded beyond a reasonable doubt that he is guilty. See Andreas, 216 F.3d at 670 (quoting United States v. Agostino, 132 F.3d 1183, 1192 (7th Cir.1997)). Christopher Beaver attempts to shoulder this burden by arguing that the government failed to prove that the concrete producers agreed to restrict their discounts on the net prices of concrete. Specifically, he contends that the evidence at trial showed that no person voiced their assent to the supposed conspiracy. Thus, according to Christopher, the government failed to establish that the producers entered into an agreement in the first place. [3] To prove a violation of § 1 of the Sherman Antitrust Act, the government had to introduce evidence showing that the concrete producers conspired to restrain trade, see 15 U.S.C. § 1; United States v. Socony-Vacuum Oil Co., 310 U.S. 150, 224 & n. 59, 60 S.Ct. 811, 84 L.Ed. 1129 (1940); Andreas, 216 F.3d at 666; United States v. Hayter Oil Co., 51 F.3d 1265, 1270 (6th Cir.1995), by agreeing to fix the price of concrete through limiting their net-price discounts, see Texaco Inc., 547 U.S. at 5-7, 126 S.Ct. 1276; Kahan & Lessin Co., 695 F.2d at 1125: United States v. Am. Radiator & Standard Sanitary Corp., 433 F.2d 174, 185-87 (3d Cir.1970). Although the existence of such an agreement is the essence of the government's § 1 conspiracy allegation, see United States v. Consol. Packaging Corp., 575 F.2d 117, 126 (7th Cir.1978); see also Nelson v. Pilkington, 385 F.3d 350, 356-57 (3d Cir.2004), the government did not need to show that the producers reached a formal agreement to limit their discounts, Am. Tobacco Co. v. United States, 328 U.S. 781, 809, 66 S.Ct. 1125, 90 L.Ed. 1575 (1946); see also United States v. Whaley, 830 F.2d 1469, 1474 (7th Cir.1987). Rather, the government was required only to establish that the concrete producers had a tacit understanding based upon a long course of conduct to limit their discounts. United States v. Beachner Constr. Co., 729 F.2d 1278, 1283 (10th Cir.1984); see also Andreas, 216 F.3d at 670; cf. Monsanto Co. v. Spray-Rite Serv. Corp., 465 U.S. 752, 764, 104 S.Ct. 1464, 79 L.Ed.2d 775 (1984) ([T]he antitrust plaintiff should present direct or circumstantial evidence that reasonably tends to prove that the manufacturer and others `had a conscious commitment to a common scheme designed to achieve an unlawful objective.' (quoting Edward J. Sweeney & Sons, Inc. v. Texaco, Inc., 637 F.2d 105, 111 (3d Cir.1980))). The government introduced ample evidence at trial that showed that the concrete producers shared a tacit understanding that they were to limit their netprice discounts collectively. In fact, the trial record is replete with details regarding the cartel's meetings in July 2000, May 2002, and October 2003, at which the producers discussed the net-price-discount limit, policing the limit, and other price restraints. Haehl, Nuckols, Irving, and Hughey each testified that, beginning in July 2000, the entire cartel met on at least three occasions with the known purpose of addressing the falling price of concrete. During each of those meetings, the competitors discussed the ways in which they could stabilize the market, leading to the proposed net-price-discount limit. And although no formal vote was taken on the discount limit, no one disagreed with the proposal or stated that he would not participate in the scheme. Indeed, when Hughey gave the producers the opportunity to oppose the price-fixing arrangement and leave the conspiracy, Nobody objected, nobody disagreed, nobody walked away. Instead, the producers discussed additional methods of aligning their pricing practices, such as instituting general price increases and a winter surcharge. And based on these meetings and related discussions, Haehl, Nuckols, Irving, and Hughey each understood that an agreement was reached. See Andreas, 216 F.3d at 670; Beachner Constr. Co., 729 F.2d at 1282. Moreover, Haehl, Nuckols, Irving, and Hughey each testified that the concrete producers' communications were not limited to the July 2000, May 2002, or October 2003 meetings; they also enforced the discount restraint by confronting those who were cheating on the cartel. Each witness also testified that, on various occasions, they either confronted someone whom they believed was cheating or were themselves accused of cheating. Hughey likewise stated that on two separate occasions Christopher Beaver reassured him that Beaver Materials was abiding by the discount limit. In the face of this evidence, Christopher's assertion that no person voiced their assent to the supposed conspiracy rings hollow. Such assent was voiced when the co-conspirators either confronted others about cheating on the cartel, or reassured otherslike Christopher didthat they were abiding by the agreement. See Beachner Constr. Co., 729 F.2d at 1282; cf. In re High Fructose Corn Syrup Antitrust Litig., 295 F.3d 651, 654 (7th Cir.2002) (stating that price-fixing conspiracy can be proved by actual, verbalized communication). Christopher Beaver asserts, however that the concrete producers' occasional cheating on the discount limit shows that no agreement was ever reached. But this argument is illogical; certainly Christopher would agree that a breach of contract does not mean that the parties never entered into the contract in the first place. And the argument is also beside the point because § 1 of the Sherman Antitrust Act does not outlaw only perfect conspiracies to restrain trade. It is not uncommon for members of a price-fixing conspiracy to cheat on one another occasionally, and evidence of cheating certainly does not, by itself, prevent the government from proving a conspiracy. See, e.g., Andreas, 216 F.3d at 679 (stating that cheating cartel members did not negate conspiracy); United States v. Misle Bus & Equip. Co., 967 F.2d 1227, 1231 (8th Cir.1992) (Government witnesses testified that although [the defendant] occasionally `cheated' his co-conspirators by bidding lower than was agreed, he . . . reached mutual understandings with the other participants about prices . . . and usually adhered to the prices and market allocations upon which they agreed.); United States v. Foley, 598 F.2d 1323, 1333 (4th Cir.1979) (Since the agreement itself, not its performance, is the crime of conspiracy, the partial nonperformance of [the defendant company] does not preclude a finding that it joined the conspiracy. (citations omitted)). Thus, we cannot say that the producers' occasional cheating prevented the government from sufficiently proving that they conspired to fix the price of concrete. Christopher Beaver continues his challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence underlying his price-fixing-conspiracy conviction by arguing that the government failed to show that he personally participated in the cartel. In Christopher's view, the testimony of Haehl, Nuckols, Irving, and Hughey implicating him in the conspiracy was not credible because no two competitors said anything as a whole which would corroborate the testimony of the others. But this argument fails from the start. We will not second-guess the jury's credibility decisions in evaluating [Christopher's] challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence, United States v. Johnson-Dix, 54 F.3d 1295, 1306 (7th Cir.1995); United States v. Henderson, 58 F.3d 1145, 1148 (7th Cir.1995), even if his co-conspirators' claims were uncorroborated, see United States v. Crowder, 36 F.3d 691, 696 & n. 1 (7th Cir.1994). But the credibility of Haehl, Nuckols, Irving, and Hughey aside, their testimony sufficiently implicated Christopher Beaver in the conspiracy. Specifically, each man testified that Christopher (1) was present at the October 2003 meeting at Nuckols's horse barn; (2) participated in discussions on how to limit the price of concrete; (3) did not object to the net-price-discount limit; (4) agreed to confront other conspiracy members if he found them cheating on the agreement; and (5) agreed on additional pricing constraints. Moreover, Hughey testified that, at the meeting, Christopher volunteered to contact the manager at American Concrete and get him the message on what we agreed on. Looking beyond the testimony of Haehl, Nuckols, Irving, and Hughey, the uncontradicted evidence regarding Christopher Beaver's responsibilities at Beaver Materials further bolsters the jury's conclusion that he participated the conspiracy. Christopher admitted to Special Agent Freeman that, as Operations Manager, he was involved in the pricing of the company's products, a role that would have allowed the jury to infer that Christopher was able to effectuate the net-price-discount limit. This inference is further supported by Hughey's testimony that he spoke with Christopher personally on two occasions, and that during those conversations Christopher reaffirmed Beaver Materials's commitment to the discount limit. And the testimony of both Mosely and Allyn Beaver failed to contradict the evidence of Christopher's involvement. Both men stated that they knew that Christopher had met with competitors at Nuckols's horse barn in October 2003, and Allyn further stated that Christopher told him that pricing was discussed at that meeting. We thus cannot say that the government failed to prove that Christopher participated in the price-fixing conspiracy, or that the district court erred by denying his motion for a judgment of acquittal. See Andreas, 216 F.3d at 670.