UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT

┐ UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, │ Plaintiff-Appellee, │ > No. 22-3923 │ v. │ │ JESSE GREGORY FAIRLEY, │ Defendant-Appellant. │ ┘

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio at Cleveland. No. 1:20-cr-00672-1—Pamela A. Barker, District Judge.

Decided and Filed: May 8, 2025

Before: CLAY, WHITE, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges _________________

COUNSEL ON BRIEF: Dennis C. Belli, LAW OFFICE, Columbus, Ohio, for Appellant. W. Connor Winn, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Appellee.

_________________

OPINION _________________

DAVIS, Circuit Judge. In September 2020, Jesse Fairley chose a local convenience-store parking lot as his base of operation to sell crack cocaine. He caught the eye of a local law-enforcement officer assigned to a federal task force, who watched Fairley conduct hand-to- hand transactions in the parking lot. When members of law enforcement closed in on Fairley and searched the parked vehicle he had frequented throughout the surveillance of his activities, they found handguns and a “bunch” of cash sitting in the open, as well as crack cocaine and marijuana in a compartment next to where Fairley had been seated. (Trial Tr., R. 59, PageID No. 22-3923 United States v Fairley Page 2

457). A jury convicted Fairley of possessing with the intent to distribute crack cocaine, possessing a firearm after a felony conviction, and possessing a firearm in furtherance of a drug-trafficking crime. After receiving a thirty-year sentence, Fairley promptly appealed his conviction.

On appeal, Fairley raises five issues for this panel’s review: (1) whether his convictions are supported by sufficient evidence of possession; (2) whether the jury instructions on third-party guilt were misleading and confusing in a way that tainted his convictions; (3) whether the cumulative effect of purportedly erroneous evidentiary rulings deprived Fairley of his due process rights; (4) whether the government’s communications with a defense witness were improper and violated Fairley’s due process rights; and (5) whether the government’s closing remarks were improper and deprived Fairley of his right to a fair trial.

For the following reasons, we AFFIRM.

I. BACKGROUND

On September 17, 2020, Detective Mathew Pollack of the Cleveland Police Department (“CPD”) sat across the street from the Little Eagle Food Market, using binoculars to observe Fairley and then 16-year-old Terrez Wilson as they spent time in the store’s parking lot. Pollack watched Fairley and Wilson repeatedly get into and out of a brown BMW sport utility vehicle (alternately “the SUV”). During this time, Pollack saw Fairley conduct two suspected hand-to-hand drug transactions. And he watched Wilson conduct at least one such transaction.

Based on his observations, Pollack suspected that Fairley and Wilson were selling crack cocaine (alternately “crack”). Pollack saw Wilson give a white, rock-