## Facts

- A drug task force in Youngstown, Ohio intercepted a vehicle shipped from California that contained concealed cocaine and was tied to a suspected dealer, Larone Williams.
- Agents removed the cocaine, substituted sham cocaine, and allowed the shipment to proceed to identify participants upon delivery.
- Dockery Cleveland and Williams retrieved the vehicle and took it to Williams’s residence, where agents observed activity consistent with drug trafficking.
- Officers executed a search warrant at the residence and found drug paraphernalia, packages of sham cocaine, and a firearm.
- Officers seized Cleveland’s cell phone during the search.
- A judge issued a separate warrant on November 6 authorizing a forensic search of the phone and stating it must be “executed” by November 27.
- On November 9, officers removed the phone from evidence storage, sent it to a forensic lab, and the lab disabled the phone’s transmission capabilities.
- Technicians extracted the phone’s data on December 21, after the warrant’s stated execution date.
- The extraction produced evidence connecting Cleveland to the trafficking scheme, including calls to a transporter and photos of Cleveland with large sums of cash.

## Issues

1. Whether Rule 41 or the Fourth Amendment was violated when forensic extraction of a seized cell phone occurred after the warrant’s stated execution deadline.
2. Whether the district court clearly erred in rejecting Cleveland’s Batson challenge to the government’s peremptory strike of a prospective juror.
3. Whether admitting evidence and testimony about a firearm found during the residence search was an abuse of discretion under the Federal Rules of Evidence.
4. Whether the prosecutor’s closing argument contained improper remarks that deprived Cleveland of a fair trial.

## Decision

- The Sixth Circuit affirmed Cleveland’s convictions.
- The court held the cell-phone warrant was executed within the deadline because the phone was seized and secured for analysis before the date; Rule 41 did not require completing forensic review by the deadline.
- The court upheld the denial of the Batson challenge, finding the government provided a race-neutral reason for the strike and Cleveland failed to show pretext.
- The court found no abuse of discretion in admitting firearm evidence because it was relevant to drug trafficking and not unfairly prejudicial.
- The court rejected the closing-argument challenge, concluding the remarks were not outcome-determinative in light of the trial record.

## Legal Principles

- For searches involving electronic storage media, Rule 41’s execution requirement is satisfied when law enforcement timely carries out the warrant’s initial execution (including seizure and securing of the device); later off-site forensic analysis may occur afterward.
- A post-deadline forensic extraction of data from a device lawfully seized pursuant to a valid warrant does not, by itself, establish a Fourth Amendment violation; the question remains overall reasonableness.
- Batson challenges are reviewed with substantial deference to the trial court’s credibility determinations; a race-neutral explanation such as a juror’s connection to a potential witness may defeat a claim absent proof of pretext.
- In drug-trafficking cases, firearm evidence may be admissible as probative of trafficking activity when its probative value is not substantially outweighed by unfair prejudice.
- Claims of prosecutorial misconduct in closing require showing improper comments and resulting prejudice affecting the verdict; strong evidence can render any error harmless.

## Conclusion

The Sixth Circuit affirmed Cleveland’s drug-trafficking convictions, holding that timely seizure and securing of a cell phone satisfied a warrant’s execution deadline under Rule 41 despite later forensic extraction, and finding no reversible error in jury selection, firearm evidence, or closing argument.


United States v. Cleveland, 907 F.3d 423 (6th Cir. 2018)