FILED U.S. COURT OF AP P EALS E LEV EN T HC IRC U IT NOV 8 , 2006 THOMAS K. KAH

N CLERK [ DO NO T P UB L I S H] I N THE UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS F O R T H E E L E V E N T H C IR C U IT

________________________ N o. 06- 11119 N on -A rgum entC al endar

________________________ D. C . Do c k e tNo . 0 5 - 0 0 0 3 6 - C R - F T M- 2 9 - DN F U N I T E D S T A T E S O F A M E R I C A , P la in tif f - A p p e lle e , v ersu s R O D O L F O P O U , I I I , D e f e n d a n t- A p p e lla n t.

________________________ A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt f orthe M i ddl e D i s tr i c tof F l or i da

_________________________ ( N ove m b e r 8, 2006) B efo re D U B IN A , W IL S O N an d P R Y O R , C i rcu i tJu d g es. P E R C U R I A M: A ppe l l a ntR odol f

o P ou, I I I , appe a l s hi s c onvi c t i on f orm a nuf a c tur i ng a nd2

pos s e s s i ng w i th i nt e ntt o di s tr i but e , 100 orm or e m a r i j ua napl a nt s , i n vi ol a t i on of 2 1 U .S .C . § 84 1(a) (1), (b)( 1)(B )( vi i ). O n app ea l , he ar gu es thatthe di stri ctcourt erre d b y notho l di ng an evi dent i ary hea ri ng , ou t si de of the pres ence of the j ury dur i ng tr i a l , t o de t e rm i ne the vol unt a r i ne s s of hi s c onf e s s i on. P ou obj e c t e d t o the i ntrodu ct i on of hi s c on fe ss i on du ri ng tri al , bu t , he concedes thathe di d n otfi l e a p re-tri al m o t i o n t o su p p ress. R ul e 12(b) prov i des thata m ot i on t o sup pres s e vi dence m ustbe m ade before tr ia l. F e d .R .C r im .P . 1 2 ( b ) ( 3 ) ( C ) . T h u s , w e h a v e r e je c te d c la im s c o v e r e d b y R u le 1 2 ( b ) w h e n th e d e f

e n d a n t f a ile d to p r e s e rv e th e m b y f ilin g ap r e - tr ia l m o tio n to s u p p r e s s . See e . g. , U

n ite d S ta te s v . N

ix , 4 3 8 F .3 d 1 2 8 4 , 1 2 8 8 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 6 ) . R ul e 12(e) further provi des that“ [a ] party w ai ves a ny R ul e 12(b)(3) defe nse, obj e c t i on, orr e que s tnotr a i s e d by the de a dl i ne the c our ts e t s unde rR ul e 12( c ) or by a ny e xt e ns i on the c our tpr ovi de s . ” F e d. R . C r i m . P . 12( e ) . H ow e ve r , “ [ f ] orgood cause, the courtm aygrantre l i ef fr om the w ai ver. ” I

d. W e h a v e s ta te d th a t a

“ f a i l ur e t o pr e s e ntas uppr e s s i on m ot i on pr i ort o tr i a l c ons t i tut e s w a i ve runl e s s the di stri ctcourtgrant s r el i ef for goo d cause show n. ” U n i ted S ta tes v. Fo rd , 34 F . 3d 992, 994 n. 2 ( 11th C i r . 1994) . A l though the di s tr i c tc our tm a y gr a ntr e l i e f f r om the w a i ve rf orgood c a us e s how n, w e ha ve de c l i ne d t o a ddr e s s the e l e m e ntof “ good c a u s e ” w h e n th e d e f

e n d a n t d id n o t r e q u e s t r e lie f f r o m th e w a iv e r . See3

F e d .R .C r im .P . 1 2 ( e ) ; U ni te d State s v . Sue s c un , 23 7 F . 3d 12 84 , 12 87 n. 7 (11 th C i r. 20 01 ). B e c a u s e th e r e c o r d d e m o n s tr a te s th a t P o u f a ile d to f ile ap r e - tr ia l m o tio n to s uppr e s s hi s c onf

e s s i on a nd di d note ve n r e que s tr e l i e f f r om the di s tr i c tc our tf

or good c a us e s how n, he ha s w a i ve d hi s a r gum e nt s c ha l l e ngi ng the vol unt a r i ne s s of h is c o n f e s s io n . See F e d. R . C r i m . P . 12( e ) A c c or di ngl y , w e de c l i ne t o a ddr e s s the m e r i t s of P ou’ s c l a i m a nd a f

f i rm hi s c onvi c t i on. AF F I RME D.