to suppress where, for instance, the delay in filing the suppression motion was caused by the government’s failure to turn over the evidence sought to be suppressed. See United States v. Chavez, 902 F.2d 259, 263-64 (4th Cir.1990). This court will not disturb a district court’s denial of a motion for leave to file an untimely suppression motion unless the district court committed clear error. Id. at 263. “Accordingly, reviewing courts rarely grant relief from denials of untimely suppression motions.” Id. (recognizing that appellate courts generally deny relief from the denial of tardy suppression motions where the motion was made after the court-imposed deadline and the' defendant proffered only a “dubious excuse”); see also United States v. Ruhe, 191 F.3d 376, 386-87 (4th Cir.1999) (<HOLDING>). We conclude that the district court did not
holding that a defendant who fails to raise a specific issue as the basis for suppression in a motion to suppress to the district court has waived the right to raise that issue on appeal holding that there was no good cause to raise an untimely suppression issue where the defendant could have with due diligence discovered the information necessary to timely raise the issue holding that the failure to raise an issue in the opening brief waives the issue holding that by fading to timely raise the issue before the trial court the defendant had waived the right to raise the issue on appeal that the trial court failed to consider less severe sanctions holding that failure to raise issue in brief constitutes waiver of appeal of the issue