Whether an appellate court can review a defense, objection, or request that is not timely made under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 12 for plain error, pursuant to Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 52(b)

QUESTION PRESENTED Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 12 previously read that the failure to timely raise certain claims in a pretrial motion waived those claims, absent a showing of good cause. The rule was amended in 2014 to remove the waiver language, and to state instead that the failure to raise claims by the appropriate deadline made them untimely. The question presented, which has sharply divided the courts of appeals, involves the interplay between the new version of the rule and the plain-error provision of Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 52(b). Specifically, the question is the following: Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 12 no longer provides that the consequence of not timely making a required, pretrial motion is a waiver. Can an appellate court review a defense, objection, or request that is not timely made under Rule 12 for plain error, pursuant to Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 52(b)? F STATEMENT OF RELATED CASES This case involves an appeal from the second trial of Mr. Bowline in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Oklahoma. His convictions in the first case, in United States v. Bowline, No. 14-cr-00049 (E.D. Okla.), were for charges relating to the distribution of Oxycodone. Those convictions were reversed for insufficient evidence. United States v. Bowline, 674 F. App’x 781 (10th Cir. 2016). The indictment in the first case named the following as codefendants: Amanda Dawn Cookson, Daniel Wayne Maudlin, Robert James Kohne, Joshua Allen Barnett, Elizabeth Portugal and Eric Stanfield CochraneCline. None of these other people took an appeal. Mr. Bowline was charged alone in the indictment underlying his present convictions. ii