the deadline established by the court. See Fed.R.Crim.P. 12(b)(3)(C), 12(c). A defendant waives the right to file a suppression motion if he fails to file the motion prior to the time set by the district court, unless he can establish good cause for the waiver. Fed.R.Crim.P. 12(e). This court has found good cause to excuse an untimely mo mit error, clear or otherwise, when it denied Lester’s motion for leave to file an untimely motion to suppress. Moreover, even assuming that the district court clearly erred when it denied Lester’s motion for leave to file the untimely suppression motion, we find that the district court’s ultimate denial of Lester’s pro se suppression motion on its merits renders any assumed error harmless. See United States v. Abu Ali, 528 F.3d 210, 231 (4th Cir.2008) (<HOLDING>) (internal citations and quotation marks
recognizing that where the error involved defies analysis by harmless error standards or the data is insufficient to conduct a meaningful harmless error analysis then the error will not be proven harmless beyond a reasonable doubt holding that unless an erroneous instruction was unlikely to have changed the result of the trial a reviewing court cannot say that giving the instruction was harmless error recognizing that an error will be deemed harmless if a reviewing court is able to say with fair assurance after pondering all that happened without stripping the erroneous action from the whole that the judgment was not substantially swayed by the error holding that before an error can be held harmless the reviewing court must be satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that the error did not contribute to the defendants conviction holding that a nonconstitutional error is harmless where an appellate court has a fair assurance that the error did not substantially affect the verdict