by introducing evidence concerning a potential defense that he never raised. Relevance, after all, must “be determined in relation to the charges and claims being tried, rather than in the context of defenses which might have been raised but were not.” United States v. Hedgepeth, 418 F.3d 411, 419 (4th Cir.2005). If the defendant wants to present a theory or belief that might have justified his actions, then he must present evidence that he in fact relied on that theory or belief. See, e.g., United States v. Kokenis, 662 F.3d 919, 927 (7th Cir.2011) (“[The defendant] offered no evidence that he actually relied on the pooling capital theory, so testimony about the theory would be irrelevant, confusing, and perhaps even misleading.”); cf. Havee v. Belk, 775 F.2d 1209, 1225 (4th Cir.1985) (<HOLDING>). Otherwise, a defendant could introduce
holding that transferees failed to satisfy element of defense where they were aware of debtors financial problems at the time of transfer had lent money to debtor prior to transfer and not all money had been repaid holding that account summary could not be used to prove the knowledge of debtor and transferees where record contained no evidence that debtor or transferees saw the summary holding that an answer that asserts a counterclaim against a plaintiff who then becomes a bankruptcy debtor is an action or proceeding against the debtor within the meaning of  362a1 notwithstanding the fact that the debtor initiated the lawsuit holding debtor could include property because the bank accepted payments directly from the debtor and had previously allowed the debtor to cure default holding debtor could cure after the debtor had previously made payments to the bank