[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FILED
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
________________________ ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
NOV 8, 2006
No. 06-11119 THOMAS K. KAHN
Non-Argument Calendar CLERK
________________________
D. C. Docket No. 05-00036-CR-FTM-29-DNF
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
RODOLFO POU, III,
Defendant-Appellant.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Florida
_________________________
(November 8, 2006)
Before DUBINA, WILSON and PRYOR, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Appellant Rodolfo Pou, III, appeals his conviction for manufacturing and
possessing with intent to distribute, 100 or more marijuana plants, in violation of
21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(B)(vii). On appeal, he argues that the district court
erred by not holding an evidentiary hearing, outside of the presence of the jury
during trial, to determine the voluntariness of his confession. Pou objected to the
introduction of his confession during trial, but, he concedes that he did not file a
pre-trial motion to suppress.
Rule 12(b) provides that a motion to suppress evidence must be made before
trial. Fed.R.Crim.P. 12(b)(3)(C). Thus, we have rejected claims covered by Rule
12(b) when the defendant failed to preserve them by filing a pre-trial motion to
suppress. See e.g., United States v. Nix, 438 F.3d 1284, 1288 (11th Cir. 2006).
Rule 12(e) further provides that “[a] party waives any Rule 12(b)(3) defense,
objection, or request not raised by the deadline the court sets under Rule 12(c) or
by any extension the court provides.” Fed.R.Crim.P. 12(e). However, “[f]or good
cause, the court may grant relief from the waiver.” Id. We have stated that a
“failure to present a suppression motion prior to trial constitutes waiver unless the
district court grants relief for good cause shown.” United States v. Ford, 34 F.3d
992, 994 n.2 (11th Cir. 1994). Although the district court may grant relief from the
waiver for good cause shown, we have declined to address the element of “good
cause” when the defendant did not request relief from the waiver. See
2
Fed.R.Crim.P. 12(e); United States v. Suescun, 237 F.3d 1284, 1287 n. 7 (11th Cir.
2001).
Because the record demonstrates that Pou failed to file a pre-trial motion to
suppress his confession and did not even request relief from the district court for
good cause shown, he has waived his arguments challenging the voluntariness of
his confession. See Fed.R.Crim.P. 12(e) Accordingly, we decline to address the
merits of Pou’s claim and affirm his conviction.
AFFIRMED.
3