United States v. Michael Pedro Andres, 960 F.3d 1310

Background:

Paid informant Bennett arranged three law‑enforcement‑directed methamphetamine purchases from Gomes and Andres (two controlled buys of ~2 oz and a planned one‑pound buy‑bust).
On the buy‑bust day, Sgt. Dake, briefed on the operation and vehicle description, initiated a traffic stop for following too closely; occupants threw a black object from the passenger side before stopping.
The thrown object proved to be ~421.1 grams of methamphetamine; Andres was identified as the driver and later indicted on conspiracy, distribution, and possession with intent to distribute charges.
The district court imposed a pretrial deadline for suppression motions; Andres filed a motion to suppress days before trial and conceded it was untimely, arguing tactical reasons (facing then‑mandatory life sentence) and that the stop was pretextual.
The district court denied the suppression motion as untimely and on the merits (traffic violation and collective knowledge justified the stop; abandonment/standing alternative), the jury convicted Andres, and the court denied a U.S.S.G. §3E1.1 acceptance‑of‑responsibility reduction.
On appeal, Andres challenged (1) the denial of his untimely suppression motion (good‑cause contention) and (2) the refusal to reduce his offense level for acceptance of responsibility; the Eleventh Circuit affirmed.

Issues:

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether district court abused discretion by refusing to consider untimely suppression motion	Andres: tactical decision (facing mandatory life) constituted good cause for late Rule 12 filing	Government/District Ct: defendant had information to file earlier; strategy/inadvertence not good cause	Affirmed — no good cause; denial of untimely motion was not abuse of discretion
Whether suppression of evidence (methamphetamine) was required	Andres: stop was pretextual; officers lacked reasonable suspicion/probable cause based on collective knowledge	Government: Sgt. Dake observed a traffic violation; collective knowledge and briefing justified stop; motive irrelevant	Affirmed — no plain error; stop justified by traffic infraction and collective knowledge
Whether Andres abandoned the methamphetamine and thus lacked standing to seek suppression	Andres: challenged abandonment (tied to propriety of stop)	Government: evidence of abandonment; court found abandonment alternative	Court did not need to decide abandonment because stop was justified
Whether Andres was entitled to a §3E1.1 acceptance‑of‑responsibility reduction despite going to trial	Andres: he admitted conduct pretrial and went to trial only to preserve a statutory/constitutional challenge to life sentence	Government/District Ct: record shows Andres contested factual guilt at trial; admissions disputed and not timely/credibly memorialized	Affirmed — no clear error in denying reduction; not one of the "rare" cases warranting credit after trial

Key Cases Cited

United States v. Curbelo, 726 F.3d 1260 (11th Cir. 2013) (no good cause where defendant had information to file Rule 12 motion before deadline)
United States v. Seher, 562 F.3d 1344 (11th Cir. 2009) (untimely Rule 12 motion not excused when information existed earlier)
United States v. Bowers, 811 F.3d 412 (11th Cir. 2016) (failure to establish good cause limits review to plain error)
United States v. Harris, 526 F.3d 1334 (11th Cir. 2008) (officer's subjective motive does not invalidate objectively justified stop)
United States v. Willis, 759 F.2d 1486 (11th Cir. 1985) (collective knowledge doctrine applies when officers maintain minimal communication)
United States v. Gonzalez, 70 F.3d 1236 (11th Cir. 1995) (defendant who contests factual guilt at trial ordinarily not entitled to acceptance‑of‑responsibility credit)
United States v. Mathews, 874 F.3d 698 (11th Cir. 2017) (district court errs if it thinks it lacks authority to grant acceptance credit as a matter of law)
United States v. Williams, 627 F.3d 839 (11th Cir. 2010) (standard of review and purpose of §3E1.1 reduction)