United States v. Bowline, 917 F.3d 1227

Ian Bowline was retried on charges for passing fraudulent oxycodone prescriptions after this Court reversed his first-trial conspiracy convictions and remanded for vacatur of sentence.
After remand the government indicted Bowline on new substantive counts under 21 U.S.C. § 843 for passing fraudulent prescriptions and using another’s registration number; two counts were later dismissed.
The district court set pretrial motion deadlines; Bowline filed a motion to dismiss for vindictive prosecution on the Saturday before the second trial, well after the deadlines had passed.
The district court denied the motion as untimely under Fed. R. Crim. P. 12(c)(3), finding Bowline had not shown good cause to excuse the delay, and also rejected the vindictiveness claim on the merits.
Bowline appealed, arguing he could obtain plain-error review on appeal despite failing to show Rule 12(c)(3) good cause; he conceded he had no good-cause excuse below.
The Tenth Circuit affirmed, holding appellate review of untimely Rule 12(b)(3) claims requires a showing of good cause and therefore declined to reach the vindictive-prosecution merits.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether an untimely Rule 12(b)(3) pretrial motion may be reviewed on appeal without showing good cause	Government: enforcement of Rule 12 deadlines; district court authority to deny untimely motions	Bowline: deletion of the word “waiver” in the 2014 amendments permits plain-error review under Rule 52(b) on appeal	Appellate review of untimely Rule 12(b)(3) claims is barred absent a showing of good cause; affirmed denial of Bowline’s motion
Standard of review for district court’s denial of relief from untimely Rule 12 motion	N/A	Bowline conceded no good cause; asked for plain-error review instead	Where defendant raised untimely motion below and district court found no good cause, appellate review is for abuse of discretion; no abuse found

Davis v. United States, 411 U.S. 233 (1973) (Rule 12’s pretrial-timing requirement bars later review absent showing of cause)
Olano v. United States, 507 U.S. 725 (1993) (plain-error framework for forfeited issues on appeal)
United States v. Burke, 633 F.3d 984 (10th Cir. 2011) (untimely Rule 12 motions governed by Rule 12 good-cause standard, not Rule 52)
United States v. Dieter, 429 U.S. 6 (1976) (appellate review is generally less desirable than giving district courts chance to correct errors)
Wainwright v. Sykes, 433 U.S. 72 (1977) (Davis principle applied to habeas; both cause and prejudice required to excuse procedural default)
United States v. Bowline, [citation="674 F. App'x 781"] (10th Cir. 2016) (prior appeal reversing Bowline’s conspiracy convictions)