statements. The district court agreed with Koerber, stating that “unless the defendant knows all of the evidence the government intends to rely upon, it kind of puts him in a hard burden to say what he is going to argue is excluded.” Id. at 962. The district court required the government to file an initial brief on this issue. The government argues that it did not engage in any impropriety by filing this motion. We conclude that the district court did not clearly err by considering this motion as part of its pattern-of-neglect analysis. We note that the government did not move to reconsider within the time to appeal the district court’s suppression order but instead waited until after it had our court dismiss its appeal. United States v. Randall, 666 F.3d 1238, 1243 (10th Cir.2011) (<HOLDING>). And as the district court noted, the
holding that the filing of a motion for reconsideration does not toll the period for seeking judicial review of the underlying order holding that notice of appeal was not effectively taken where appeal was filed simultaneously with timely motion for reconsideration because when timely motion for reconsideration is filed a notice of appeal filed prior to disposition of the motion to reconsider has no effect holding that a motion for reconsideration in a criminal case must be filed within the 14day period for filing a notice of appeal holding that the filing of an opening brief within the time period for filing a notice of appeal could constitute notice of appeal holding that notice of appeal did not divest the district court of jurisdiction at the time it was filed because a motion for reconsideration was pending