MEMORANDUM **
Micah Bruno appeals from his criminal conviction for uttering counterfeit obligations or securities. He challenges the district courts denial of his motion to suppress. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
Normally, we review the denial of a suppression motion de novo and the underlying factual findings for clear error. United States v. Dixon, 984 F.3d 814, 818 (9th Cir. 2020). But where “the defendant attempts to raise new theories on appeal in support of a motion to suppress,” he must show “good cause for failing to present in his pre-trial motion the new theory for suppression he raises in [the] appeal.” United States v. Guerrero, 921 F.3d 895, 898 (9th Cir. 2019) (per curiam), cert. denied, ––– U.S. ––––, 140 S. Ct. 1300, 206 L.Ed.2d 378 (2020); see Fed. R. Crim. P. 12(c)(3).
Here, like the Guerrero defendant, Bruno changed his argument on appeal. In the district court, he disputed the governments factual representations supporting the search of his apartment. On appeal, he no longer argues that the search warrant application contained factual inaccuracies or material omissions. Rather, he argues that the facts were insufficient to establish probable cause. Because Bruno fails to explain why he has good cause for not raising this argument earlier, we deem it waived. See Guerrero, 921 F.3d at 898.
AFFIRMED.