[D O NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FILED

F O R THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

NOV 8, 2006

THOMAS K. KAHN

N o . 06-11119

CLERK

N o n - A r g u m e n t Calendar

D . C. Docket No. 05-00036-CR-FTM-29-DNF

U N IT E D STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

RODOLFO POU, III,

Defendant-Appellant.

A p p e al from the United States District Court

fo r the Middle District of Florida

(N o v em b er 8, 2006)

B efo re DUBINA, WILSON and PRYOR, Circuit Judges.

P E R CURIAM:

A p p ellan t Rodalfo Pou, III, appeals his conviction for manufacturing and

p o ssessin g with intent to distribute, 100 or more marijuana plants, in violation of 2 1U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(B)(vii). On appeal, he argues that the district court e rr ed by not holding an evidentiary hearing, outside of the presence of the jury d u rin g trial, to determine the voluntariness of his confession. Pou objected to the in tr o d u c tio n of his confession during trial, but, he concedes that he did not file a p re-trial motion to suppress.

R u le 12(b) provides that a motion to suppress evidence must be made before trial. Fed.R.Crim.P. 12(b)(3)(C). Thus, we have rejected claims covered by Rule 1 2 (b ) when the defendant failed to preserve them by filing a pre-trial motion to su p p ress. See e.g., United States v. Nix, 438 F.3d 1284, 1288 (11th Cir. 2006).

Rule 12(e) further provides that "[a] party waives any Rule 12(b)(3) defense, o b jectio n , or request not raised by the deadline the court sets under Rule 12(c) or b y any extension the court provides." Fed.R.Crim.P. 12(e). However, "[f]or good c au s e , the court may grant relief from the waiver." Id. We have stated that a "failu re to present a suppression motion prior to trial constitutes waiver unless the d is tr ic t court grants relief for good cause shown." United States v. Ford, 34 F.3d 9 9 2 , 994 n.2 (11th Cir. 1994). Although the district court may grant relief from the w aiv er for good cause shown, we have declined to address the element of "good cau se" when the defendant did not request relief from the waiver. See F ed .R .C rim .P . 12(e); United States v. Suescun, 237 F.3d 1284, 1287 n. 7 (11th Cir. 2001).

B ecau se the record demonstrates that Pou failed to file a pre-trial motion to su p p ress his confession and did not even request relief from the district court for g o o d cause shown, he has waived his arguments challenging the voluntariness of h is confession. See Fed.R.Crim.P. 12(e) Accordingly, we decline to address the m erits of Pou's claim and affirm his conviction.

A F F IR M E D .