841(a)(1). Govan appeals his conviction arguing that the district court erred in denying: 1) his motion to suppress illegally-obtained evidence; and 2) his motion for a judgment of acquittal based on the insufficiency of the evidence presented at his trial. For the reasons that follow, we AFFIRM.' I. Govan was charged in a conspiracy to distribute methamphetamine in Midland, Texas in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1). At trial, Govan moved to suppress text messages seized by Detective Ronnie Mob-ley from Govan’s cell phone several months earlier. When Govan was arrested, Detective Mobley did not have a warrant to search Govan’s phone. Therefore, Govan argued that the text messages were obtained in violation of Riley v, California, — U.S. -, 134 S.Ct. 2473, 2495, 189 L.Ed.2d 430 (2014) (<HOLDING>). Nevertheless, the dis trict court denied
holding a warrantless search of cell phone contents did not exceed permissible scope of search incident to arrest holding that while law enforcement officers properly separated and assumed possession of a cell phone from arrestees person during the search incident to arrest a warrant was required before the information data and content of the cell phone could be accessed and searched by law enforcement holding seizure of arrestees cell phone lawful but finding the fourth amendment requires a warrant to perform a forensic search of the lawfully seized cell phone holding that the answer to the question of what police must do before searching a cell phone seized incident to an arrest is accordingly simple get a warrant holding that the permissible scope of a search incident to arrest includes the contents of a cell phone found on the arrestees person