discussed Cited "see" United States v. Ramon Milian-Rodriguez See United States v. Echols, 577 F.2d 308, 311 (5th Cir.1978) (district court acted within its discretion in denying motion to suppress that was filed “over one year after the trial court had set pretrial motions to be heard and just six days before trial”), cert. denied, 440 U.S. 939 , 99 S.Ct. 1288 , 59 L.Ed.2d 499 (1979); 4 see also United States v. Mangieri, 694 F.2d 1270, 1283-84 (D.C.Cir.1982) (noting limited scope of review of district court’s denial of suppression motion pursuant to Rule 12(f)).

discussed Cited "see, e.g." United States v. Bin Laden Rule 41(e) [the predecessor to Rule 12(b)(3) ] ... puts the grant of such a hearing in the discretion of the judge unless made ‘before trial’ and here if the trial had not literally begun, the hearing would have delayed it, and the occasion was within the purpose of the limitation.”), cert. denied, 353 U.S. 984 , 77 S.Ct. 1282 , 1 L.Ed.2d 1143 (1957); see also United States v. Echols, 577 F.2d 308, 311 (5th Cir.1978) (deeming suppression argument as untimely because raised “just six days before trial”), cert. denied, 440 U.S. 939 , 99 S.Ct. 1288 , 59 L.Ed.2d 499 (1979).