United States v. Joseph Suggs, 703 F. App'x 425

In June 2014 Belleville police found Joseph Suggs with two teenage boys and viewed photos on his camera showing the boys with pants down; a deleted photo showed one boy’s exposed genitals. State police executed a warrant; Suggs was later federally charged with production and attempted production of child pornography under 18 U.S.C. § 2251(a).
The district court set a pretrial deadline (Aug 21, 2014) for motions to dismiss or suppress; Suggs filed several pro se motions after the deadline but the court struck them and required filings through counsel.
Suggs changed counsel twice; the second appointed lawyer sought leave in July 2015 (about 11 months after the deadline) to file a suppression motion; the government opposed for lack of good cause and asserted the motion was meritless.
The district court denied leave to file the untimely motion, citing the elapsed deadline, multiple continuances already granted, lack of a showing that the basis was previously unknown, and the need to protect trial schedule and fairness to government/victims.
Trial proceeded; Suggs was convicted on all counts and sentenced to concurrent 20-year terms (240 months) and 10 years’ supervised release.
On appeal Suggs argued the district court abused its discretion by refusing to accept his untimely suppression motion; he also hinted at ineffective assistance by trial counsel for failing to file the motion earlier.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the district court abused its discretion denying leave to file an untimely motion to suppress	The government: Rule 12 allows late motions only for good cause; Suggs didn’t show good cause (counsel waited months and prior counsel deemed suppression frivolous)	Suggs: motion was meritorious, prior pro se attempts and counsel conflict justify reopening deadline and another continuance	Affirmed — no abuse of discretion; Suggs failed to show good cause for the delay, so district court properly refused the untimely motion
Whether the appellate court may reach merits or plain error without good-cause showing	Gov: appellate review of suppression requires antecedent showing of good cause; absent that, merits are not reached	Suggs: urged review of suppression issue and suggested counsel was ineffective for not filing timely motion	Held: Court declined to reach merits or plain-error review because defendant did not establish good cause; ineffective-assistance claim dismissed without prejudice to collateral review

United States v. Adame, 827 F.3d 637 (7th Cir. 2016) (affirming that Rule 12 requires showing of good cause for untimely pretrial motions)
United States v. Daniels, 803 F.3d 335 (7th Cir. 2015) (same; merits do not excuse failure to timely file absent good cause)
United States v. Acox, 595 F.3d 729 (7th Cir. 2010) (appellate courts must first find good cause before reviewing suppression or plain-error claims)
United States v. McMillian, 786 F.3d 630 (7th Cir. 2015) (review of district court’s good-cause determination is for abuse of discretion)
United States v. Winbush, 580 F.3d 503 (7th Cir. 2009) (trial-management decisions, including continuances, reviewed for reasonableness)
United States v. Salahuddin, 509 F.3d 858 (7th Cir. 2007) (identifying circumstances where delay and fairness factors counsel acceptance of late motion)
United States v. Garcia, 528 F.3d 481 (7th Cir. 2008) (good cause lacking where newly appointed counsel never sought extension and filed suppression motion months after appointment)
United States v. Kirkland, 567 F.3d 316 (7th Cir. 2009) (upholding refusal to consider late suppression ground first raised after deadline without explanation)