F.2d 1101 (7th Cir.1984)). Menasha’s new theory for its Section 1 claims could be rejected on this basis alone. More importantly, judged on the merits, Menasha’s theory of a horizontal conspiracy simply doesn’t hold water. Menasha points to no evidence in the record from which a jury could reasonably find that there existed a “conscious commitment to a common scheme designed to achieve an unlawful objective.” Monsanto Co. v. Spray-Rite Service Corp., 465 U.S. 752, 768, 104 S.Ct. 1464, 79 L.Ed.2d 775 (1984). The mere fact that large numbers of retailers agreed to News America’s exclusive contracts is not sufficient to support an inference of a horizontal agreement among retailers, and is clearly insufficient to allow it to proceed to trial on this theory. Cf. Id. at 768, 104 S.Ct. 1464 (<HOLDING>). Moreover, the agreements at issue in this
holding that since the statute makes motive critical a petitioner must provide some evidence of it direct or circumstantial holding that the applicant must provide some evidence direct or circumstantial that the persecutor was or would be motivated to persecute him because of a protected ground holding circumstantial evidence has equivalent standing to direct evidence in criminal prosecution holding that a plaintiff must adduce either direct or circumstantial evidence reveling a unity of purpose or a common design and understanding holding that direct and circumstantial evidence are to be given the same weight when reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence