ground.” 6 Wayne R. LaFave, Search and Seizure: A Treatise on the Fourth Amendment § 11.2(a) (4th ed.2004); see also Chavez-Valencia, 116 F.3d at 132 (noting that most courts adhere to the waiver approach). But courts have not always applied this rule consistently. Some courts have been willing to review suppression claims for plain error despite a defendant’s noncompliance with Rule 12. In United States v. Buchanon, for instance, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals characterized Rule 12(f) as a mere “forfeiture” provision despite the Rule’s use of the term “waiver,” and thus held that a suppression argument forfeited under Rule 12(f) could be reviewed for plain error under Rule 52(b). 72 F.3d 1217, 1227 (6th Cir.1995). But see United States v. Vincent, 20 F.3d 229, 234 (6th Cir.1994) (<HOLDING>). Similarly, the Eleventh Circuit Court in
holding that a party may not raise an issue for the first time on appeal holding that defendant was procedurally barred from raising issue on appeal where issue was listed as grounds in motion for new trial holding that the plaintiff was precluded from raising the issue for the first time on appeal holding that defendant was precluded from raising suppres sion issue for the first time on appeal holding that the court bars a party from raising an issue on remand that  was not raised on appeal