## Facts

- Jim Clay repeatedly bought distribution-size quantities of cocaine from supplier Hamdi Ayyash for more than a year.
- Ayyash regularly fronted cocaine to Clay on credit, with repayment expected after Clay resold the drugs.
- Clay and Ayyash negotiated price at each transaction and used pagers to coordinate meetings and deliveries.
- Clay resold the cocaine and moved tens of thousands of dollars’ worth per month.
- Clay was convicted of a cocaine distribution offense and conspiracy to distribute cocaine; on appeal he challenged only the conspiracy conviction, arguing the evidence showed a mere buyer–seller relationship.

## Issues

1. Whether evidence of a long-term, credit-based relationship involving repeated purchases of distribution quantities, coordinated communications, and resale expectations was sufficient to prove Clay joined a conspiracy to distribute cocaine rather than a mere buyer–seller relationship.

## Decision

- The Seventh Circuit affirmed the conspiracy conviction.
- The court held that the evidence permitted a rational jury to find an agreement to distribute cocaine that went beyond repeated arm’s-length sales.
- In reviewing sufficiency, the court viewed the evidence in the light most favorable to the government and upheld the verdict because a rational trier of fact could find the elements of conspiracy beyond a reasonable doubt.

## Legal Principles

- A buyer–seller relationship alone, even with repeated transactions, does not establish a drug-distribution conspiracy; the government must prove an agreement to distribute.
- Circumstantial evidence may show an agreement when the relationship reflects cooperative distribution rather than isolated sales.
- Factors supporting an inference of conspiracy include prolonged cooperation, repeated sales of distribution quantities, and fronting/credit terms indicating the supplier’s financial stake in the buyer’s resale.
- Coordinated methods of communication and an arrangement structured around resale may support finding a shared plan to distribute.

## Conclusion

Because Clay’s year-plus, high-volume dealings with Ayyash involved fronting on credit, coordination, and an arrangement premised on Clay’s resale, the evidence supported a reasonable inference of an agreement to distribute cocaine, and the conspiracy conviction was affirmed.


United States v. Clay, 37 F.3d 338 (7th Cir. 1994)