the district judge reviewed the record, he did so with the understanding that “[n]o objections have been filed to this Recommendation.” Therefore, we need not consider Hall’s “objection-by-ratification” argument because it is inapplicable. Second, Hall asserts his case is particularly compelling because the Government has not identified any prejudice it would endure should we address his claims. This rationale is rooted in the notice the Government received when Hall made these arguments to the magistrate judge. But Hall ignores the other side of the coin: The arguments Hall made to the magistrate judge are conclusive proof of Hall’s actual prior knowledge of the claims he now raises on appeal, which sets the stage for waiver to apply. Cf. United States v. Johnson, 415 F.3d at 730-31 (<HOLDING>). Moreover, even if the government is not
holding that the appellant waived this argument holding that ruling on motion to suppress is interlocutory and may be reconsidered holding that argument was not preserved where defendant did not file a pretrial motion to suppress and did not object or make a motion to exclude the evidence until his motion to dismiss at the close of all of the evidence holding that because appellant did not become a party by intervention before judgment was rendered appellant may not extend the time to appeal by filing a motion for new trial holding that not filing a motion to suppress constitutes mere neglectful failure to pursue an argument  not intentional relinquishment which may be excused if appellant could show cause