FILED
United States Court of Appeals
Tenth Circuit
May 18, 2012
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
Elisabeth A. Shumaker
Clerk of Court
TENTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v. No. 11-2104
SERGIO JAVIER RODRIGUEZ, (D.C. No. 1:10-CR-01007-JCH-1)
(D.N.M.)
Defendant-Appellant.
ORDER AND JUDGMENT *
Before GORSUCH and BALDOCK, Circuit Judges, and BRORBY, Senior
Circuit Judge. **
A jury convicted Defendant Sergio Javier Rodriguez of possession with intent
to distribute 100 kilograms and more of marijuana in violation of 21 U.S.C.
§ 841(a)(1) and (b)(1)(B). Rodriguez filed this appeal, challenging the legality of
the search which produced the marijuana. The Government, in its brief, asserted
Defendant waived the suppression issue in the district court because of his trial
counsel’s failure to file a motion to suppress the evidence pursuant to our decision
*
This order and judgment is not binding precedent except under the doctrines
of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. It may be cited, however,
for its persuasive value consistent with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1.
**
After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined
unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist the determination of this
appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is therefore
ordered submitted without oral argument.
in United States v. Burke, 633 F.3d 984 (10th Cir. 2011). In reply, Defendant agreed
trial counsel’s failure constituted waiver of the suppression issue.
Defendant further acknowledges in his reply that although Federal Rule of
Criminal Procedure (Rule) 12(e) provides for a narrow exception to the waiver rule
where a party shows good cause for the failure, the exception is rare. And in this
case, Defendant recognizes any claim of ineffective assistance is not ripe for review
and must await a ruling in post-conviction proceedings. Defendant expressly
concedes that the suppression issue raised on appeal was not raised to the district
court and that whether ineffective assistance of counsel constitutes good cause in this
case is a matter to be addressed in post-conviction collateral proceedings under 28
U.S.C. § 2255. 1 Nevertheless, Defendant requests his conviction be reversed.
The parties are correct that Rule 12(b)(3)(C) requires a motion to suppress
evidence to be made before trial. Rule 12(e) states a party who does not file a timely
suppression motion “waives any Rule 12(b)(3) defense, objection, or request . . . .”
“When a motion to suppress evidence is raised for the first time on appeal, we must
decline review.” Burke, 633 F.3d at 987 (quoting United States v. Brooks, 438 F.3d
1231, 1240 (10th Cir. 2006)). Rule 12(e)’s “single narrow exception to the waiver
rule” allows relief for good cause. Id. at 988 (internal quotation marks omitted).
“We rarely, however, grant relief under the good-cause exception.” Id. Defendant
1
We commend Defendant’s appellate counsel for his forthrightness in making
these concessions.
2
has not attempted to demonstrate good cause for the failure to raise the issue to the
district court other than to allege his trial counsel was ineffective. But as Defendant
admits, we consider “ineffective assistance of counsel claims on direct appeal in
limited circumstances,” and “only where the issue was raised before and ruled upon
by the district court and a sufficient factual record exists.” United States v. Flood,
635 F.3d 1255, 1260 (10th Cir. 2011). Defendant correctly notes the absence of
those factors in this case. Accordingly, Defendant’s conviction and sentence are
AFFIRMED.
Entered for the Court,
Bobby R. Baldock
United States Circuit Judge
3