IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA

HAMMOND DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

vs. ) No. 2:15-CR-44

)

DEMETRIS REESE, )

)

Defendant. )

OPINION AND ORDER

This matter is before the Court on the Motion to Suppress

Evidence, filed by Defendant, Demetris Reese, on July 28, 2015. 

(DE #20.) For the reasons set forth below, the motion is DENIED as

untimely. 

On April 16, 2015, Defendant was charged via indictment with

a violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1), felon in possession of a

firearm. On May 8, 2015, Defendant was arraigned and an order was

entered requiring all pretrial motions to be filed by June 5, 2015. 

(DE #8.) 

On June 5, 2015, the day the pretrial motions were originally

due, Defendant, through his attorney, filed a Motion for Extension

of Time to File Pretrial Motions, indicating that he had received

discovery from the Government on May 19, 2015, and needed

additional time to review it, research any possible motions, and to

request additional discovery. (DE #13.) That motion was granted,
and the deadline was extended to July 6, 2015. (DE #14.) 

On June 29, 2015, Defendant, through his attorney, filed a

Second Motion for Extension of Time to File Pretrial Motions,

stating that Defendant received more discovery from the Government

on June 27, 2015, and needed additional time to review the new

discovery, investigate, and research any possible motions. (DE

#15.) That motion was also granted, and the deadline was extended

to July 13, 2015; the trial setting was also vacated and reset to

October 26, 2015. (DE #17.) 

On July 10, 2015, Defendant, through his attorney, filed a

Third Motion for Extension of Time to File Pretrial Motions,

requesting an additional fourteen days to file the pretrial motions

and noting that “[t]he defense does not anticipate filing any

further motions for extension of time.” (DE #18.) That motion was

granted, and Defendant was ordered to file any pretrial motions by

July 27, 2015. (DE #19.) 

On July 28, 2015, one day after the deadline and without

seeking an extension or leave to file the motion late, Defendant

filed the instant Motion to Suppress Evidence. (DE #20.) 

The motion to suppress is untimely. Magistrate Judge Cherry

ordered all pretrial motions to be filed by July 27, 2015. 

Defendant was seemingly aware of this deadline, as he had filed

three previous motions for extension of time. Those motions

indicate that the Government turned over its last batch of

2
discovery on June 27, 2015, a full month before the new deadline. 

If a defendant wishes to pursue a motion to suppress, he must

do so before trial. Fed. R. Crim. P. 12(b)(3)(C). Moreover, the

Court may set a deadline for the parties to make pretrial motions. 

Rule 12(c)(1). “If a party does not meet the deadline for making

a Rule 12(b)(3) motion, the motion is untimely. But a court may

consider the defense, objection, or request if the party shows good

cause.” Rule 12(c)(2). Here, Defendant has offered no reason,

much less good cause, for the late filing of the instant motion to

suppress, and he has not sought leave to file it after the

deadline. As such, the motion to suppress is DENIED as untimely. 

See, e.g., United States v. Angle, 234 F.3d 326, 333 (7th Cir.

2000) (upholding the district court’s denial of motion to suppress

as untimely, finding “court did not abuse its discretion in denying

[defendant’s] suppress motion for untimeliness.”); United States v.

Lauderdale, No. 07-cr-30052-MJR, 2007 WL 3231469, at *1 (S.D. Ill.

2007) (denying motion to suppress when two motions to suppress

filed 24 days late and no showing of good cause was made). 

DATED: July 30, 2015 /s/ RUDY LOZANO, Judge

United States District Court

3