objection which is ample and timely to bring the alleged ... error to the attention of the trial court and enable it to take appropriate corrective action is sufficient to ... preserve the claim for review.’ ” United States v. Williams, 985 F.2d 749, 755 (5th Cir.1993) (ellipses in original) (quoting Osborne v. Ohio, 495 U.S. 103, 125, 110 S.Ct. 1691, 109 L.Ed.2d 98 (1990)); see also Douglas v. Alabama, 380 U.S. 415, 422, 85 S.Ct. 1074, 13 L.Ed.2d 934 (1965). If an argument is not raised in a motion to suppress, it is deemed forfeited, and we review for plain error. See United States v. Baker, 538 F.3d 324, 329 (5th Cir.2008). However, where good cause is shown, the “court may grant relief from the waiver.” Fed.R.CrimP. 12(e); cf. United States v. Hall, 565 F.2d 917, 920 (5th Cir.1978) (<HOLDING>). Seale never affirmatively argued that Miranda
holding that district courts desire to avoid penalizing a criminal defendant for the inadvertence of his attorney constitutes cause  holding that for public policy reasons the mere filing of a bar complaint by a defendant against his attorney does not mandate removal of the attorney holding neither a lack of prejudice to the defendant nor the running of the statute of limitations constitutes good cause holding district courts adoption of the presentence report constitutes sufficient findings holding that the failure to object to a trial courts instruction constitutes waiver