that he promptly destroyed those images or reported the matter to law enforcement. Rather, he appears to be asserting a challenge on behalf of other hypothetical individuals who may be charged with possession of child pornography under § 2252A and attempt to raise this affirmative defense. Indeed, in the instant motion, Defendant references a hypothetical “innocent computer user, such as [a] village priest,” who would not be able to raise this defense if he inadvertently came into possession of three or more images of child pornography. (Doc. no. 82, p. 9.) In the absence of any allegation that this affirmative defense is available to Defendant, the Court finds that he lacks standing to challenge it in this pre-trial motion. See United States v. Holm, 326 F.3d 872, 876 (7th Cir.2003) (<HOLDING>). In sum, the receipt and possession statutes
holding that an overbreadth challenge to a child pornography law was rendered moot by amendment to the statute holding that nominative fair use is an affirmative defense to a prima facie case of likelihood of confusion similar to the fair use defense holding that the running of the statute of limitations is an affirmative defense holding that fair use is an affirmative defense holding that a defendant charged under 18 usc  2252 with pos session of child pornography who had not sought to use similar affirmative defense available under that statute did not have standing to challenge the defense on behalf of other individuals