Case ID: f-appx_471/html/0880-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM:", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Martin LEDEZMA-DOMINGUEZ, Jose Manuel Ruvira-Gonzalez, Defendants-Appellants.
    No. 11-14671
    Non-Argument Calendar.
    United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.
    June 18, 2012.
    Steven E. Butler, Kenyen Ray Brown, Sean P. Costello, Donna Barrow Dobbins, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Mobile, AL, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Brandy B. Hambright, Hicks Matranga and Osborne, LLC, Robert A. Ratliff, Robert A. Ratliff, PC, Mobile, AL, for Defendants-Appellants.
    Before CARNES, JORDAN, and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

Martin Ledezma-Dominguez and Jose Ruvira-Gonzales appeal their convictions for conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute cocaine and possession with intent to distribute cocaine under 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1) and 846. They argue that the district court should have suppressed evidence from a search of their vehicle and their statements after that search, but neither filed a motion to suppress or otherwise raised either issue in the district court.

A motion to suppress evidence must be made before trial, and a party waives an objection to admission of evidence by not timely raising it. See Fed.R.Crim.P. 12(b)(3)(C), (e). This waiver may be excused by a showing of good cause. See Fed. R. Crim. P. 12(e). The defendants have not argued that there is good cause for their failure to raise their suppression arguments in the district court, so they have waived them. See United States v. Barrington, 648 F.3d 1178, 1190 (11th Cir. 2011).

AFFIRMED.