raised before the district court. Under Fed. R.Crim.P. 12(b)(3), a suppression issue must be raised before trial, and the failure to raise the issue in a timely pretrial motion results in “waiver” of the matter under Rule 12(f). Frazier, Sr. concedes he was late in raising the issue but contends we may still review the alleged Franks violation for plain error under Rule 52(b). His argument raises the interesting question of whether a court of appeals is barred altogether from reviewing an issue that has been “waived” under Rule 12(f). Compare United States v. Weathers, 186 F.3d 948, 955 (D.C.Cir.1999) (concluding that plain error review under Rule 52(b) of a “waived” issue would render Rule 12(f) meaningless), and United States v. Chavez-Valencia, 116 F.3d 127, 129-30 (5th Cir.1997) (<HOLDING>), with United States v. Buchanon, 72 F.3d 1217,
holding that a party may not raise an issue for the first time on appeal holding that the plaintiff was precluded from raising the issue for the first time on appeal holding that rules 12b3 and 12f along with circuit precedent barred defendant who failed to raise a suppression issue before the district court from raising the issue for the first time on appeal holding that where defendant failed to raise defense of plaintiffs fraud in federal court defendant is barred from raising that issue in state court 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