## In the



# U n ited S ta tes Co urt o f Ap p ea ls

F o rth eS e v e n th C ir cu it
N o. 08

- 3410 U NI T ED S TATE SOF A MERI CA, P la intif f-A pp ellee, v. K EN NE T H L. K I R KL AND , D ef endant-Appellant.

A pp eal from the United S t ates Di strictC our t fo r the S outhernDi stricto f Illino is. No . 07 C R 30137

—Mi ch ael J . Reagan, Judge
.
A RGUED F EB RU AR Y 23, 2009

— D ECI DE D J UNE 1, 2009

Befo re E A S T E RB R OO K, Chie f Judg e, an d K ANNE a nd E VANS, C ircu it Judges . K ANN E , Cir cu i tJudg e . On the m or ni ng o fS eptem ber2, 20 07, o ffi ce r s o fthe F airv i ew Hei g ht s Po l i ce De par tment ar re st ed K en n et h K irk lan d aft er a se ar c h o fh is v eh icle re veal ed cr ack coca i ne. On Septe m ber4, Kir kl and w as t r a n s fe r r e d t o th e c u s t o d y o fth e D r u gE n f o r c e m en t A g e nc y . Whi l e i n DEA c us t o dy, Ki r k l a nd ma de s e v e r al in c u lpator y r em ar ks, and he was ar ra i gned l ate r that afternoon. On A pri l 30 , 2008, Kir kl and w as convi cted o f2 N o. 08

- 3410 posse ssi on with i ntent to dist ribute fi fty gr am s o r m or e o f coca i ne bas e. H e no w appeal s, ar gui ng tha t hi s s tat em ents to DE A ag ents w er e ina d m issibl e under Feder al Rul e o fCr i m i na l Pr o ce dur e 5( a) , 1 8 U. S

. C. § 3 50 1( c) , a nd the F ourth A m endm ent. Because defe nse c ounseldi d not adeq u at ely devel op thes e a rgum ents i n the dist ri ct c ourt, Ki r k l an d ha s f o r fei te d hi s r i g htt o appe althe se i ss ue s, a nd hi s c o nv i c t i o n wi l l b e a ffi r med

.

I. B ACK GR OUN D In thee a r lymorni ng hour s o fS eptem ber2, 20 07, Fa i rv i ew H ei ghts pol i ce r esponded to a r epor t o fsuspi ci ous a cti vi ty r el at ed to Ken ne thKi r k l an d a t the Ra m ada Inn. A dr ug detect i on dog bro ught t o the s cene conducted an exte ri or “sni ff ” of K i rk l and’s vehi cl e and a l er ted to the pr ese nce o f contr ol l ed substa nces. A fter the posi ti ve al er t, pol i ce continued to m oni torthe hote l and K i rk l and’s vehi cl e. A s Kir kl and l eft the R am ada I nn l ate r that m or ni ng, Of f i c e r B r i a n R o g e r s s t o p p e d h i m f o r d r i v i n g wi th a cra cked windshi el d and fai l i ng to we ar h i s s eatbel t. A fter Rogers ask ed K i rk l and som e ini ti alquesti ons and i ssued hi m a w ar ni ng f orthe tr affic vi ol ati ons, S er gea nt M i ke O ri g l i os so an d D E A T as k F or c e O ffice r (“T FO ”) C h ris M o dr us i c ar r i ve d a t th e sc en e. W i th o utno ti fy i ngKi r k l an d o fhi s r i g ht s, Ro g er s as ked K irkl an d t o s te p o uto fthe ve hi cl e, t o l d hi m he was fr ee t o l ea ve , a nd as k ed i fhe w oul d answ erso m e quest i ons. K i rk l and agr eed and ga ve co ns en t f o r Rog er s, Ori g l i o ss o , and M o dr us i c to s ea r chthe vehi cl e. The se ar ch r eve al ed ri fl e ca rt ri dges a n d crac k coca i ne.N o. 08

- 3410 3

The pr ec ise tim ing ofKir kl and’ s ar re s tan d t ra ns fert o the 1 D E A o ffi c e i s u n c l e a r . T h e w a r n i n g t i c k e t w a s i s s u e d a t 9 : 3 1 a . m. o n S e p t e m b e r 2 , a n d th e se a r c h a n d a r r e st fo l l o w e d . R i g e l ’s i nt er vi ew ofKir kl and be ganat10 : 10 a. m . onSept em ber 4, but iti s unc le a r h ow l ong K ir kland had been at the D EA offic e. A lthoughthi s t i m e f ra m e would be r el eva ntt o the f or t y- eig hthour w indow und er C o u n ty o f R iv er s i d e v . M c L a u g h lin , 500 U.S

. 4 4 (19 9 1 ), seei n

f ra , we wil l not re ac h the m er i t s ofthi s i s s ue and the re f or e ne ed n otdel ve i nt o the que s t i on oft i m i ng. Ki r k l a n d wa s a r r e s t e d a ta r o u n d 1 0 : 0 0 th a tmo r n i n g . He was he l d i n po l i ce c us to dy unt i l he was t r an sfer r ed to the D E A ’s o ffice on th e m o r n i n g of Se p te m b er 4, ap p ro x im ately for ty- ei ght ho urs l ate r. TFO M ar k Ri gelr ead K i rk l and his M i r anda ri ghts, and K irk l and agr eed to speak w i th hi m . W hen Rig el ask ed i f K i rk l and w an ted 1 to m ake a w ri tte n statem ent, Kir kl and res pond ed that he woul d a cc eptr es po ns ibi l i tyf o r the c o ca ine. Ki r k l an d w as arr aig n ed be for e a m ag ist ra te j u d ge atap p ro x im ate l y 3 : 0 0 p . m. tha ta ft e r no o n. He wa s l a t e r i nd i c t e d f or p ossess ion w ith inten t to distribu te fift y g ram s or m ore of a m ix tu re o r su b st an c e c on ta in in g c oc ain e b as e, in viol ation of 21 U

. S. C

. § 841(a)( 1). On N ove m ber30 , Kir kland fi l ed a m oti on t o supp re ss “c er ta i n e vi den ce i n thi s m att er . ” Aft err ec i tingthe eve nts that o ccurr ed w hi l e in the c u st od y ofthe Fai rv i ew Pol i ce Depar tm ent, Kir kl and cl ai m ed t hat hi s dete nti on was “ unr ea so nabl e, i l l eg al, unl aw fula nd un co ns ti tu
ti o na l

. ” S pec i fi ca l l y, he c l ai m ed th atthe l en g tho fthe det en ti o n was c o ns ti tu ti o na l l y unr ea so nabl e an d tha t th e p olic e v iola te d th e F ou rt h A m en d m en t b y d et ain in g h im4 N o. 08

- 3410

w i thout a r eas onabl e a rt icu lable suspi ci on that he w as i nv o l ve d i n c r i m i na l a ct i vi ty
. He a l so a r g ue d t ha t th e interrogation road side w as coerc ive and cond uc ted before he w as ad vised of his con stitut ional ri gh ts un d er M i r anda

. H e cl ai m ed th ata l l s ubs eque nts ta te m en ts a nd a dm i ss i o ns w er e thus tainted by thi s i l l ega l co nd uct. O n Fe b ru ar y 1 , 200 8, K irk lan d filed a m e m or an d u m in supp or t of thi s m oti on, i n w hi ch he re peated hi s F ourth A m endm ent a rgum ent a nd r eq ueste d that the se i zed cra ck be s up pr es se d. Conspicuousl y absent fro m bo th the m oti on a nd m em or andu m was any m enti on wh ats oev er of th e D E A or K irk lan d ’s s ta te m en ts to T FO R ige l. On Febr uary28 , the cour t hel d a s up press i on hea ring. D efe n se c o u n s el re p ea te d th e a rg u m en ts m ad e in h is mot i o n a nd me mor a nd um a nd a dde d: Regar ding the s tat em ents that he ulti m ate l y m ake s at the DEA offi ce seve ra l d ays l ate r, Ibel i eve tho se w ar rant suppress i on a s wel l, Your H onor, bas ed up on the f act that he had bee n i n custo dy f oro ver 48 hours at that poi nt, ap parently had notev en had a ch an g e o fc l o th i ng . M y unde r st an di ngi s th athe w as brou gh t t o Cou rt l ater th at d ay, bu t not be fore bei ng i nter vi ew ed at the DEA o ffi ce. The Di st r i ctCo ur t i ss ue d a n o r d er on A pr i l 1 5. The cour t decl i ned to supp re ss th e physi calev i dence bec ause the s ea rch w as supp or ted bypro babl e ca use a nd was c o ns e ns ua l

. Ho we v e r, i th e l d tha ta nys t a t e men t s ma de at th e side of the road w e r e i n v iolation of M i r anda . In d ecid ing w hich statem en ts to su p p ress, th e d istri ct cou rt no t e d:N o. 08

- 3410 5 [ I ] n hi s m oti on, Kir kl and does no t s peci fy which p ar tic u lar st at em en ts w er e u n c on st itu tio n ally o bt aine d, a nd thi s Co ur t “n ee d no t tr y t o fi sha g o l d c o i n fr o m a b uck et o fmud” i n de te r m i ni ng whi c h s pe c i fi c s t a t e men t s Ki r k l a nd i nt e nd s to c h alle n ge . U ni t e d S t at e s ex re l

. Gars tv. Lo ckhe e dM ar t i n Corp. , 328 F.3d 374 , 3 7 8 ( 7 t h C ir. 2003). N onethel ess , atthe hear i ng, Kir kl and refer re d sp ec ifica lly to st at em en ts h e m ad e a t t h e s c en e . . . as wel l a s th e S ept embe r 4 , 2 00 7[, ] st at ementhe m ad e t o O ffice r R ige l. U ni t e d S t at e s v. Ki rk l and, N o . 0 7

- C R

- 3 0 1 3 7, 2 0 0 8 WL 1774 602, at* 6 (S. D. I l l

. A pr. 15 , 20 08)

. The co urt then deter m i ned that, with r espectt o hi s s tat em ents to TFO Ri g e l, Ki r k l a nd h a d r e c e i v e d M i r anda war ni ng s an d i ndi ca te d a wi l l i ng ne ss t o s pea kt o o ffi cers. Thu s, the co ur t det er m i ne d tha t th ese sta te m en ts wer e co ns ti tu
ti onal l y obtained and adm i ssibl e. On Apr i l 3 0, f o l l o wi nga jury tri al, Ki r k l an d was c o nvi cted. On S ep tem ber19 , he was s entence d to 240 m onths’ i m pri sonm ent a nd te n yea rs ’ superv i sed r el eas e.

II. A NA LYSIS On a p p ea l, K i rk l and argues that he w as hel d fo r an un reason able am ou nt of tim e prior to being brou gh t before a m ag i st r at e f o r a pr obabl e ca us e det er m i na ti o n. The Four th A m endm ent re quir es that a defe nd an t re cei ve a j u d icia l d et er m in at ion of pr ob ab le cau se p r o m p tly aft er arr es t o r d et en tio n . Gers t e i n v . Pugh , 420 U
. S. 10 3, 11 46 N o. 08

- 3410 ( 19 75 )

. In C ounty of Rivers ide v. M cLaugh li n , 50 0 U.S

. 44 , 56 ( 19 9 1 ) , the S up r e me Co ur t he l d tha t, ab s e nt e v i de nce o f i l l w i l l or unreas onabl e j usti fi cati ons f or del ay, a j ud i ci al pr o b ab l e c a us e de t e r mi na t i o n i s g e ne r a l l y pr o mpt f or p u rp os es of th e F ou rt h A m en d m en t if it oc c u rs w ith in f o r ty
- ei g hthour s afte r a r r es t o r de te nt i o n. W he r e a defen dant does not re cei ve a probabl e ca use dete rm i nati o n wi th i n f o r t y - e i g h th o u r s , th e b u r d e n s h i ft s t o the go ve rn m en t t o jus tify th e d ela y. Id. at57
. Si m i l ar l y, Rule 5( a) of the F edera l Rule s o fCri m i nal Pro cedure re quir es th at a per son ar re ste d on a federa l ch ar g e be pr es en te d t o a magi st r at e j udg e “wi th o ut unnecessary del ay. ” Even g i ven a del ay i n pres entm ent, how eve r, a vol untaryconfe ssi on m ade w i thi n si x hours o f ar re st re m ai ns adm i ssibl e. 18 U
. S. C. § 3501 ( c)

. On the other hand , a vol untaryconfe ssi on m ade aft erthe si x-ho ur s afeharbo r peri od m ay be i nadm i ssibl e as a Rul e 5 ( a) vi ol ati on and pu rs uant to M cN a bb v. U nited Sta tes , 318 U.S

. 33 2, 34 4- 4 7( 1 9 4 3 ) , a nd M a llo ry v . U nited Sta tes , 35 4 U
. S. 44 9, 45 5- 56 (19 57 ). C o rley v . U nited Sta tes , 12 9 S

. Ct. 1558, 15 71 ( 2009 ) ( hol ding that § 3501 did notsupplant M cN a bb-M a llo rya nd th at“ [ i ] fthe c o nfes si o n o cc ur r ed be f o r e pr es en tmenta nd beyo nd si x hours

. . . the cour t m ust deci de w hether del aying tha t l ong w as unreas onabl e o r unnecessary under the M cNabb

-M al l ory case s”). Ti m e spe nti n s ta te c us to dy do es notg en er al l y c o unt to w ar d § 35 01 (c )’s s ix -h ou r lim it a t i o n . U ni t e d S t at e s v. C a r ter, 91 0 F
. 2d 1524, 15 28 ( 7th Ci r. 19 90)

. To s up press a s t a t e me n ti n a f e d e r a l p r o s e c u t i o n b a s e d o n e x c e s s i v e t i me spent i n sta te custo dy, the defe nd ant m ust est abl i sh a cl earN o. 08

- 3410 7

W e note thatat oral argum ent, K ir kland c onceded that he had 2 f or fei t ed thi s is s ue. H oweve r, nei the r ofhi s br i ef s m ake s s uc h a con cession
. C on sid erin g tha t K irk lan d ’ s br iefs b oth con tain a len g thy R u le 5(a) d i sc u ss i o n a nd tha t ou r an aly sis of this issue i s p a r a l lel to the Fo u rth A m en d m en t inqu iry , w e w ill disc uss K ir kland’ s f orfei ture ofboth is sues together. “w or ki ng ar ra ngem ent b etween feder alagents and sta te or l oca l offici al s. ” Id. I t is not enou gh to provid e a “bare su sp icio n ” o f su c h a w or kin g a rra n ge m en t. U ni t e d S t at e s v. G a ines , 5 55 F
. 2d 61 8, 6 22 ( 7th Ci r . 1977). I ns te ad, the d efe n d an t m u st “s h ow th at st at e c u st od y w as ‘d es ign in gly uti l i zed’ to cir cum vent Rule 5( a)

. ” Id. at62 5 ( quoti ng U nited State s v. C had w ick, 415 F.2d 16 7, 17 1 (1 0t h C ir. 19 69 )); see a lso C a rter, 91 0 F
. 2d at 1528

. Ki r k l an d c lai m s th atthe di st r i ctc o ur t er r ed i n f ai l i ng to supp re ss hi s co nfe ssi on t o TFO Rig el

. H e ar gu es that hi s extended detenti on bef or e prese ntm ent to a m agi str ate j ud ge vi ol ate d Ru l e 5 ( a) , § 3501 ( c) , and the M cN a bb-M a llo ry l i ne o fc as es b ec au se TF O M o dr us i c’ s i nv o l ve m enti n the sta te i nvest i gat i on c o ns t i tute d ac o l lus i ve w or ki ng ar ra ngem ent b etween federa l and st ate autho ri ti es. H e a l so 2 claim s tha t the l en gth of tim e he sp en t in cus t o d y before re ceiv ingap r ob ab l e c a us e de t e r m i nati on

— o ve r f o r ty
- ei g ht hou rs

— viol ated the Fou rth A m en d m en t un d er R iversid e. Forthe re aso ns thatf ol l ow, w e fi nd t h at K i rk l and has for feit ed h is rig h t t o ra ise th es e is su es on ap p ea l. I t i s wel l e st ab l i sh ed th ata c r i m i na l de fen d ant se ek i ng t o s u p p re ss ev id en c e m u st d o s o p rior to tria l. See F ed. R. C rim . P. 12 (b )(3) (C ); U nite d State s v . B rodie, 50 7 F
. 3d 527,8 N o. 08

- 3410 530 ( 7th Ci r. 20 07)

. U nd erFe deralR u l e o fCri m i nal Pro

c ed u re 12 (e), “a d efe n d an t w h o d oe s no t ass er t a tim ely m oti on t o supp re ss ‘ w ai ves’ the defe nse. ” B rodie, 50 7 F.3 d at53 0; see F ed. R. Cri m . P. 12 ( e)

. W e ha ve he l d tha t th e te r m “ wai ve r ” i n Ru l e 12(e) e nc o m pas se s no t o nl y the ty pi ca l de fi ni ti o n o fwai ver, w he r e a defen dan t i nt en ti onal l y r el i nquishes a known r i ght, but al so f or fei ture , w h er e a d efe n d an t fa ils to as s e r t a r igh t in a tim ely fas h ion
. B ro die, 507F.3d at53 0-3 1. T h u s, w e a p p ly R u le 12( e) w h er e a defendant has ei therwaive d orf or fei ted h is rig h t t o s ee k s u p p re ss ion of ev id en c e. Se ei d. Und e r o r di na r y c i r c ums t a nc e s , wa i v e r p r e c l ud e s a ppel l ate r evi ew altog ether, wh er eas we re vi ew a f or fei ted iss u e for p lain err or . Id. A f o r fei te d s uppr es si o n a r g um en t pr es en ts a spe ci alsi tu at i o n be ca us e, unde r Rul e 12 ( e) , “ th e defe nd ant m ust fi rs t s how go od cause f orf ai l i ng to m ake that ar gum ent i n the dist ri ct court ” bef or e we m ay re vi ew it. U nite d State s v. M urdock, 4 91 F.3d 694 , 699 (7th C ir. 2007). Ki r k l a n d d o e s no t ma k e a g o o d c a u s e a r g u me n t, a n d we th er efo r e wi l l r ev i ew hi s cl ai m s o nl y i fwe fi nd tha t he ad eq u at ely ra ise d th em in th e d ist ric t cou rt, i .e., th at h e d id n ot for feit th em in th e fi r s t p lac e. Se eU ni t e d S t at e s v. Hargrove, 50 8 F
. 3d 44 5, 450 ( 7th Ci r. 20 07) ( hol ding that a defe nd ant who gave no expla nati on f or hi s f ai l ure to see k supp re ssi on had notm ade t h e go od cause sho w i ng r equ ired by R ule 12(e)). N ot onlym ust the defendant m ove to suppress evi dence to pre ser ve an i ssue f orappeal, but he al so mus ti de nt i fy the g r o un ds u po n whi c h he bel i e v e s s up p re ss ion is w ar ra n te d

. U ni t e d S t at e s v. Pope, 46 7 F
. 3d 912,N o. 08

- 3410 9 91 9 (5 th C ir. 20 06 ); U nite d State s v. D ewitt, 94 6 F

. 2d 1497, 15 02 ( 1 0 th C ir. 19 91 ); cf. B rodie, 507F.3d at53 1 (“ T h is cour t has r epeate dlyhel d that there i s no go od cause to excuse a Rul e 1 2 f or fei ture wh er e a defenda n t fi l es a ti m el y mo t i o n t o s up pr e s s o n o ne g r o un d, a nd l a t er se e k s t o a s s e r t a n e w g r o u n d f o r s u p p r e s s i o n f o r t he fi rs t t i m e o n appea l. ”)

. Kir kl and m ai ntai ns that, al though hi s m em or anda did notr ai se the s peci fi c i ssues he no w appe al s, hi s co uns el ’ s s ta te m en t a t the suppr es si o n h ea r i ng w as suffi ci ent t o prese rv e them

. W e di sag re e. N e a r the e nd o fthe s up pr e s s i o n he a r i ng, de f ense cou ns el r eq ue sted fo r t h e fi rst tim e tha t the cou rt supp re ss K i rk l and’s sta tem ents to the DEA

. H e no ted that K i rk l and had been i n cu sto dy f orm or e than f or tyei ght hours w i thout a change of cl othi ng. H e also st ate d thatKi r k l a nd h a d b e e n b r o ughtb e f o r e the c o ur tl a ter th at d a y, b u t n o t b e f o r e b e i n g i n t e r v i e we d a tt he DE A o ffi ce. In thi s co ntext, he did not m enti on the Fo urth A m en d m en t, Rive rs i de, Ru le 5 (a), § 3 50 1(c ), M cNabb , M a llo ry, ora “ wor k i nga r r an g ement ” be twe enfede r ala nd state offi ci al s. In o th erwor ds, he f ai l ed to de ve l o p the ar g um en t wi th ci ta ti o n to an y r el ev an t au th o r i tyo r mean ingful discu ssion. Such a f ail ure results in forfeiture , s ee Jar r ar d v. CDI Te l e c omm . , Inc. , 4 0 8 F. 3d 905, 916 (7th Cir. 2005 ) , bec ause i t doe s not gi ve the g ove rnm ent a m eani ngfu l op p or tu n ity t o re b u t K irk lan d ’s c laim s, n or d oe s it n ot ify th e d ist ri c t c o u r t th at it n ee d s t o a d d re ss th em , see Pope, 46 7 F
. 3d at 919. W e do not dem and that a defendant’s ar gu m ent b e a “m od el[] of t ria l ad vo c ac y” to av oid fo rfe itu re . U nited10 N o. 08

- 3410 S t a t e s v . R o q u e - Es p i noza , 338 F.3d 72 4, 727 (7th Cir. 2003). F o r e xa m pl e, i n Roqu e - Espi noza , w e he l d tha t th e defe nd ant di d not for fei t his r i ght t o ra i se a due pro cess chal l enge on a pp eal, ev en tho ugh he had fa i l ed to l abel h is arg u m en t as su c h in th e cou rtbe low

. Se ei d. In that case , ho wev er, the de fe nda ntc i te d the a ppl i cabl e l aw, a nd the di st r i ct j ud g e was “ pl ainl y abl e to di sc ern” fr o m the defen dan t’ s fi l i ng s whi chc o m bina ti o n o fc as es fo r m ed th e b as is of h is a rg u m en t. Id. In contr ast, Kir kl and’s counsel d id n o t cite any ap p li cab le cases at th e sup p ression h earin g, n or d id h e a r t i c u lat e a n y of t h eir u n d er lyin g p rin c ip les . T h e d ist ric t c ou rtw as , th er efo re , un ab le t o a sc er ta in th e g ro und s upon wh i ch Kir kl and based hi s a rgum ent. Thi s i s ev i den t fr o m the di st r i ctc o ur t’ s o r der, w hi chmenti oned co unsel ’ s co m m ents onl y insof aras theyr el ate d to K i rk l and’s M i r anda ar gum ent. For us to rul e on t h ese ad d iti ona l iss u es w he n th e d istri ct cou rt had no op p ort u n ity to d o s o “ w ou ld ru n co u n te r to ax iom at ic pri nci ple s o fappel l ate r evi ew . ” Pope, 46 7 F
. 3d at 919. Pe r ha ps i n h i nds i g htwe ca n di sc ern a pl au sible c o nne ct i o n b etwee n de fens e co uns el ’ s co m m en ts a nd the gr ounds K i rk l and now rai ses on appeal

. A fteral l, co unsel did m enti on th e forty- ei ght- hour detenti on a nd the f act th at K irkl an d ha d not been brou gh t before th e c ou rt pr i o r to t h e i n t e r v i e w a tth e D E A o ffi c e . B u tth e s e c o mm en ts c o ul d j us t as e as i l y ha ve b een d ire ct ed to the ar gum ent i n K i rk l and’s supp re ssi on m oti on that h is st atementwas i nv o l unt ar y . Co ur ts “ ar e no t i n the busi ness off or m ula ti ng ar gum ents f orthe parti es, ” U nited St at e s v. M cCl e l l an , 165 F. 3d 535, 550 ( 7th Cir

. 1999 ) ; i t is defe nse c ounsel ’ s j ob to devel op suppress i on a rgum entsN o. 08

- 3410 11 i n a m eani ngful w ay so that the g ove rn m ent has an adequate o pp or tuni ty to re spond and the di str i ct c ourtto m ake an info rm ed deci sion , cf

. Pope, 46 7 F
. 3d at 919 ( ho l di ngtha t f o r fei tu r e ha d o cc urred w he r e ne i th erthe gover nm ent no r the di str i ct c ourtwas put on not i ce o f th e iss u e ). T hu s, j us t as the district cou rt “ ‘need not try to fi sha go l d c o i n fr o m a b uck eto fmud’ ” i n de te r m i ni ng w h ich ev id en c e to su p p re ss , Kirkl and, 20 08 W L 17746 02, at * 6 ( quoti ng Loc khe e d-M ar t i n Corp. , 328 F.3d a t 3 78 ), i t al so ne ed no t try t o i m agine eve r y pl au sibl e ar g um en t that coul d be e xtra cted fro m an a tto rney ’ s co m m ents. Finally, w e also not e th at d efense cou ns el’ s p erfun ctory c o mme n t s w e r e u n t i me l y . T h e di s t r i c tc o u r ts e ta N o v e mber28, 20 07, deadl i ne f orKir kl and’s supp re ssi on m oti ons, and K irk l and’s fi nal r epl y b ri efwas due on J anuary25 , 20 08. Yet K i rk l and did not m en tio n the sta tem en t to the DE A unti l hi s s up press i on hea ring o n F e b r ua r y 2 8
. No to nl y mus tthe de fe nd a ntr a i s e a s up press i on m oti on pri orto tr i alto avo i d w ai vero r f o r fei tu r e, b uthe musta l so c o m p ly wi tha ny t i m i ng r equi r ement s se t bythe di st r i ctc o ur t. F ed. R. Cr i m . P. 12 (c ); s e eU ni t e d S t at e s v. M anc i l l as , 18 3 F
. 3d 682, 70 3 ( 7th Cir

. 1 99 9). I fa defe nd ant m ake s a m oti on o r ra i ses an ar gum ent in an unti m el y m anner, i t is w ithin the di scr etio n of th e d ist ric t c ou rtto refu se to ad d re ss it. U nited Sta tes v . M o ral ez , 964 F.2d 67 7, 68 0-8 1 (7 th C ir. 19 92 ); see al s o M anc i l l as , 183 F. 3d at 703- 04 ( affi rm i ng the dist ri ct cou rt’s refus al to con side r a m otion to su p p ress w he re i t was r ai se d forthe fi r stt i m e ata s uppr es si o n h ea r i ng that too k plac e after the per i od se t bythe cour t had ended). Consi dering t hat Kir kl and gi ves no e xplanat i on12 N o. 08

- 3410 f orhi s f ai l ure to ra i se these ar gum ents i n hi s ini ti al m otion, it w ou ld ha ve been w ithin th e d istri ct c o u rt’s di sc r et i o n t o refu se to c o ns i derthe m i n the fi r sti nst an c e. Se eM anc i l l as , 18 3 F
. 3d at 703- 04.

III. C ON CLU SI ON Defen se c o unsel’ s co m m en ts a t th e se nt en cinghe ar i ng w er e not s uffi ci entl y deve l oped to pre ser ve the i ssues K irkl an d now rai ses on ap p eal. K irkl an d h a s therefore forfeited his ri gh t to ap p eal these issu es un d er R ule 12(e). W e A F F I RM the j ud gm ent o fthe dist ri ct c ourt
.

6- 1- 09