occasions, the district court admonished defense counsel and expressed its displeasure with his trial t Cir.2005) (rejecting innocent possession defense and affirming district court's refusal to give jury an instruction on "fleeting” or "transitory” possession); United States v. Mercado, 412 F.3d 243, 250-52 (1st Cir.2005) (rejecting innocent possession defense and holding that even momentary or fleeting possession of a firearm is sufficient under the statute); United States v. Gilbert, 430 F.3d 215, 218 (4th Cir.2005) (rejecting the proposal of an exception to § 922(g)(1) when the defendant had no illicit motive and attempted to quickly rid himself of the firearm). Some have rejected substantially similar defenses. See United States v. Hendricks, 319 F.3d 993, 1004-05 (7th Cir.2003) (<HOLDING>); United States v. Adkins, 196 F.3d 1112, 1115
holding that current titleholder would only have to be joined if the appropriate remedy for the plaintiff would be to reconvey his property holding that the insured failed to meet its burden where the insurer had reserved its rights to assert coverage defenses holding that only justification defenses would be recognized holding that plaintiffs could not proceed with different theory of liability after close of discovery when defendant would be prejudiced by inability to develop newly relevant evidence and defenses holding only defenses that would be valid in rendering state can be relied upon by courts of another state