FILED U.S. COURT OF AP P E A LS E LE V EN T HC IRC U IT JANUARY 4, 2008 THOMAS K. KAH

N CLERK

The Honorable Richa

rd W. St ory, United States District Judg e for the Northern District * of Ge org ia, sitting by

designation. [ P UB L I S H] I N THE UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS F O R T H E E L E V E N T H C IR C U IT

________________________ N o. 06- 14884

________________________ D. C . Do c k e tNo . 0 5 - 2 0 7 3 0 - C R - UU B U N I T E D S T A T E S O F A M E R I C A , P la in tif f - A p p e lle e , v ersu s R A Y P A L M A , D e f e n d a n t- A p p e lla n t.

________________________ A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt f orthe S outhe r n D i s tr i c tof F l or i da

_________________________ ( Jan u ar y 4, 2008) B e f or e E D M O N D S O N , C hi e f J udge , D U B I N A , C i r c ui tJ udge , a nd S T O R Y , D i stri ctJudg e.

* P E R C U R I A M:2

A ppe l l a ntR a y P a l m a appe a l s hi s c onvi c t i on a nd s e nt e nc e f orthe pos s e s s i on of a f i r e a r m a nd a m m uni t i on a f t e rbe i ng c onvi c t e d of

a f e l ony , i n vi ol a t i on of

18 U . S . C . § 9 22 (g)( 1). O n app ea l , he ra i se s tw o i ss ues: (1) w hether the di stri ctcourt e r r e d i n r e f

us i ng t o i ns truc tthe j ur y on a “ t e m por a r y , i nnoc e ntpos s e s s i on d e f e n s e ,” a n d ( 2 ) w h e th e rA p p e lla n t is e n title d to a n e w tr ia l d u e to c e r ta in a l l e ge dl y pr e

j udi c i a l r e m a r ks tha tthe tr i a l j udge di r e c t e d a tde f e ns e c ouns e l . F or th e r e a s o n s th a t f

o llo w , w e a f

f ir m th e c o n v ic tio n a n d s e n te n c e . I . B AC KG RO UN D P al m a w as conv i ct ed i n 1 99 6 o f afe l on y off ense for w hi ch he w as i m pri soned from Ja nu ary 17, 19 96 , un t i l M ay 21 , 19 99 , and for w hi ch he remai ned on s upe r vi s e d r e l e a s e f

r om M a y 21, 1999, unt i l D e c e m be r17, 2001. O n A ugus t5, 2005, de s pi t e hi s s t a tus a s a c onvi c t e d f e l on, P a l m a a c c om pa ni e d hi s the ng ir lf r ie n d A b r il G e r m a n to A c e ’s I n d o o rS h o o tin g R a n g e a n d P r o G u n S h o p in M i am i -D ade C ou nt y, F l ori da. T here , G erm an approached an em pl oyee nam ed P a tr i c i o J i r on a tthe s a l e s c ount e r , a nd s he e xpr e s s e d he ri nt e r e s ti n pur c ha s i ng a si ng l e- ac t i on . 45 ca l i ber f i re arm . Ji ron sho w ed G erm an a K i m ber . 45 ca l i ber s i ngl e - a c t i on f

i r e a r m f r om hi s gun box pr i c e d a t$1, 200. G e r m a n pi c ke d i tup a nd al m osti m m edi at el y dec l ar ed thati tw as the fi re arm she w ant ed. S he di d n otra ck the gun’ s s l i de , r e m ove the m a ga z i ne , ora s k a ny que s t i ons a boutthe f i r e a r m . S he3

d id n o t s e e k to te s t f

ir e th e g u n b e f

o r e p u r c h a s in g it. G e r m a n , a n a lie n r e s id in g in th e s ta te o f F lo r id a , p r o v id e d J ir o n w ith ap p r o p r i a t e i d e n t i f

i c a t i o n a n d f

i l l e d o u tBu r e a u o f

A l c o h o l , To b a c c o , a n d Fi r e a r ms ( “ A T F ” ) F or m 4473. S he di d nott a ke the f i r e a r m w i th he ron A ugus t5, 2005, b e c a u s e o f

th e S ta te o f

F lo r id a ’s f

iv e - d a y c o o lin g - o f

f p e r io d a n d b e c a u s e s h e d id notpr e s e nta c onc e a l e d- w e apons pe r m i t . D ur i ng the tr a ns a c t i on on A ugus t5, 2005, P a l m a di d notj oi n G e r m a n a tthe s a l e s c ount e r , nordi d he a s k J i r on a ny q u e s tio n s a b o u t th e f

ir e a r m . H o w e v e r , J ir o n d id te s tif y th a t P a lm a w a s th e r e w ith G erm an and t hathe no t i ce d t hem spea ki ng w i th o ne anot her duri ng the pu rc hase . P al m a a nd G erm an re turned t o A ce ’ s on A ug ust15 , 20 05 . T he em pl oyee as si st i ng them thatday c al l ed i n G eorge D epi na, the ow ner of A ce ’ s, t o con fi rm thatG erm an’ s r es i dental i en do cum ent at i on and con ce al ed-w eapo ns perm i tw er e s u f f ic ie n t. D e p in a d e te r m in e d th a t th e d o c u m e n ts w e r e a c c e p ta b le a n d to ld h is e m pl oy e e s tha tthe s a l e c oul d pr oc e e d. T he r e a f t e r , A c e ’ s c ont a c t e d the F l or i da D e pa r tm e ntof

L a w E nf

or c e m e nt( “ F D L E ” ) t o c onduc ta c r i m i na l ba c kgr ound c h e c k . Th e FD LE a p p r o v e d G e r ma n t o t a k e p o s s e s s i o n o f th e f i r e a r m th e s a me da y . H ow e ve r , P a l m a m e nt i one d tha the w i s he d t o c ha nge the f i ni s h of the fi re arm , and h e a sked ho w l on g i tw ou l d t ake t o ref i ni sh the gu n. A ce ’ s e m pl oyee A ndy A ndr a de s how e d the m s om e f i ni s he s tha tw e r e a va i l a bl e . P a l m a m a de the4

s e l e c t i on, a nd the gun w a s s e ntoutf orr e f i ni s hi ng. O n e i the rA ugus t15 orA ugus t16, 2005, A T F S pe c i a l A ge ntJ a c que l i ne E l baum re ce i ved a t el epho ne ca l l fr om D epi na concerni ng a s uspi ci ou s f i re arm pur c ha s e . H e t ol d he rhe be l i e ve d tha tG e r m a n w a s m a ki ng a s tr a w pur c ha s e f or P al m a. A g en tE l b au m co n d u ct ed an i n v est i g at i o n an d d i sco v ered th atP al m a w as a c onvi c t e d f

e l on. M e a n w h i l e , Pa l ma t e l e p h o n e d A c e ’ s s e v e r a l t i me s a s k i n g w h e th e r“ my g u n ’ s b a c k f

r o m r e f i n i s h i n g . ” ( D E: 1 2 9 : 3 3 5 - 3 8 . ) Ea c h t i me h e c a l l e d , Pa l ma i de nt i f i e d the gun a s hi s . O n A ugus t26, 2005, the da y a f t e rH ur r i c a ne K a tr i na s truc k s outh F l or i da , he c a l l e d A c e ’ s t o a s k w he the rhe c oul d c om e i n a nd r e tr i e ve hi s gun. A ndr a de r e c ogni z e d P a l m a ’ s voi c e on the phone a nd t ol d hi m tha the c o u ld n o t p ic k it u p d u e to a p o w e ro u ta g e a n d d a m a g e f r o m th e h u r r ic a n e . S ubs e que nt l y , A ge ntE l ba um l e a r ne d tha tthe f i r e a r m w oul d be a va i l a bl e f or p ic k u p a t A c e ’s o n S e p te m b e r1 , 2 0 0 5 . S h e a n d o th e rla w e n f o r c e m e n t a g e n ts es t abl i shed survei l l ance ou t si de A ce ’ s thataf t erno on . P al m a c al l ed A ce ’ s thatday a nd w a s i nf

or m e d tha tthe r e f

i ni s he d f i r e a r m w a s r e a dy . A T F a ge nt s obs e r ve d a s ilv e rC h r y s le rm in iv a n a r r iv e in th e A c e ’s p a r k in g lo t a t ap p r o x im a te ly 4 :1 5 P .M . P al m a w as dri vi ng the van, and h e w as ac com pani ed by G erm an and h ersi st er ,Almante testified at trial that she stood awa y from Palma and G erma

n duringthe 1 transac tion and rejoined them when they left the store . Germ an p aid f

or thegrips , u

po n Palma ’s re qu e st. 2 5 R e n a A lm o n te . P a lm a , G e r m a n , a n d A lm o n te e x ite d th e v a n a n d e n te r e d A c e ’s . I ns i de , a n e m pl oy e e br oughtthe f i r e a r m outof

the s a f e a nd pl a c e d i ton the coun t eri n frontof G erm an and P al m a. G erm an pi cked up the fi re arm and h anded 1 i tt o P al m a, w h o sai d h e l i k ed th e fi n i sh . P al m a th en t o o k th e g u n i n h i s h an d s, l i f t e d i tup, a nd poi nt e d i ti n f r ontof hi m a s though he w e r e f i r i ng the w e apon, be f or e f i na l l y putt i ng i tba c k dow n. H e a s ke d D e pi na f ora s pe c i f

i c br a nd of hol l ow - poi nta m m uni t i on f orthe gun. D e pi na i nf

or m e d hi m tha tA c e ’ s di d not ha ve the r e que s t e d br a nd a nd s how e d hi m a box of r e gul a rB a l l P M C a m m uni t i on, w hi c h P a l m a a gr e e d t o pur c ha s e . W hi l e A ndr a de c om pl e t e d the s a l e of the am m un i t i on t o P al m a, D epi na cont ac t ed A gentE l baum . T hen, A nd ra de as ked P al m a a nd G erm an w hether they w ant ed t o p urchas e pea rl gri ps, and b ot h sai d t hat they w er e i nt er es t ed. A nd ra de pl ac ed a s peci al order f or the pearl gri ps, w hi ch P al m a a nd G erm an pl anned t o i nst al l l at er . 2 S ub se qu ent l y, A gentE l baum and o ther l aw enforce m entagent s observed and v i deot aped P al m a, G erm an, and A l m on t e l ea vi ng A ce ’ s a nd w al ki ng t ow ar d the van i n t he parki ng l ot . P al m a w as ca rryi ng the bo x o f P C M . 45 ca l i ber a m m u n itio n a s h e e x ite d th e s to r e , a n d h e h a d th e r e c e ip t f o rth e a m m u n itio n in h is6

poc ke t . G e r m a n w a s c a r r y i ng he rpur s e a nd the box c ont a i ni ng the K i m be r. 45 c a l i be rf i r e a r m . A ge nt s a r r e s t e d G e r m a n a nd P a l m a , s e i z i ng the f i r e a r m , the a m m uni t i on, a nd the r e c e i pt . T he f i r e a r m a nd gun box w e r e l a t e rs ubm i tt e d f or f i nge rpr i nta na l y s i s . N o us a bl e f i nge rpr i nt s w e r e f

ound on the f

i r e a r m i t s e l f

, but e xpe r t s i de nt i f

i e d tw o of

P a l m a ’ s f

i nge rpr i nt s on the i ns i de of the gun box. O n S e pt e m be r19, 2005, a f e de r a l gr a nd j ur y i n the S outhe r n D i s tr i c tof F lo r id a r e tu r n e d a n in d ic tm e n t a g a in s t A p p e lla n t a n d G e r m a n , c h a r g in g th e m b o th w i th m aki ng a f

al se st at em enti n con nect i on w i th t he att em pt ed ac qu i si t i on of a f ir e a r m in v io la tio n o f

1 8 U .S .C . § 9 2 2 ( g ) ( 1 ) . A p p e lla n t a lo n e w a s c h a r g e d w ith p o s s e s s i o n o f

a f i r e a r m a n d a mmu n i t i o n a f t e rh a v i n g b e e n c o n v i c t e d o f a c r i me puni s ha bl e f

ora t e r m e xc e e di ng one y e a rof i m pr i s onm e nt , i n vi ol a t i on of 18 U . S . C . § 9 22 (g)( 1). A ft er ret ai n i n g sep arat e co u n sel , ap p el l an tan d G erm an each p l ed n o tg u i l ty, a nd the i rtr i a l s w e r e s ubs e que nt l y s e ve r e d. G e r m a n’ s tr i a l pr e c e de d P a l m a ’ s a nd r e s u lte d in a n a c q u itta l. O n M a r c h 2 2 , 2 0 0 6 , f iv e d a y s a f

te rG e r m a n ’s a c q u itta l, A p p e lla n t m o v e d to a llo w G e r m a n ’s a tto r n e y , R o b e r t S im e ls , E s q ., to a c t a s h is c ouns e l , a nd the di s tr i c tc our tgr a nt e d the m ot i on. A n e i ght - da y j ur y tr i a l be ga n on A pr i l 20, 2006. O n M a y 1, 2006, the j ur y r e tur ne d a una ni m ous ve r di c tf i ndi ng A ppe l l a ntnotgui l ty of

m a ki ng a f

a l s e s t a t e m e ntt o obt a i n a f i r e a r m butgui l ty of7

unl a w f ul pos s e s s i on of

a f i r e a r m a nd a m m uni t i on. O n A ugus t31, 2006, the di stri ctcourtse nt ence d P al m a t o a 40 -m on th t erm of i m pri sonm entt o b e f ol l ow ed b y a tw o -year p eri o d o f su p erv i sed rel ease. T h e co u rtal so o rd ered P al m a t o p ay a $100 s pe c i a l a s s e s s m e nt . P a l m a t i m e l y f i l e d a not i c e of

appe a l f r om hi s c onvi c t i on and sent ence . I I . DI S CUS S I ON A . J ur y I ns t r uc t i o ns W e r evi ew a di stri ctcourt ’ s r ef usal t o g i ve a r equest ed j ury i nstruct i on for a n abuse of di sc re t i on . U ni t ed S t at es v. F ul ford, 26 7 F . 3d 12 41 , 12 45 (11t h C i r. 2 0 0 1 ) . W e w ill f

in d r e v e r s ib le e r r o ro n ly if “( 1 ) th e r e q u e s te d in s tru c tio n c o r r e c tly s t a t e d the l a w ; ( 2) the a c tua l c ha r ge t o the j ury di d nots ubs t a nt i a l l y c ove rthe p r o p o s e d in s tru c tio n ; a n d ( 3 ) th e f a ilu r e to g iv e th e in s tru c tio n s u b s ta n tia lly i m pai re d t he defendant ’ s abi l i ty t o p re se ntan ef fe ct i ve defense . ” I d. (c i t i ng U ni t ed S t a t e s v. M a r t i ne z , 83 F . 3d 371, 376 ( 11th C i r . 1996) ) . W hi l e a di s tr i c tc our tj udge is “v e s te d w ith b r o a d d is c r e tio n in f o r m u la tin g h is c h a r g e to th e ju r y s o lo n g a s it a c c ur a t e l y r e f

l e c t s the l a w a nd the f

a c t s , ” U ni t e d S t a t e s v. S i l ve r m a n, 745 F . 2d 1386, 1395 ( 11th C i r . 1984) ( c i t i ng U ni t e d S t a t e s v. B or de r s , 693 F . 2d 1318, 1329 ( 1 1 th C ir . 1 9 8 2 ) ) , ad e f

e n d a n t “is e n title d to h a v e p r e s e n te d in s tru c tio n s r e la tin g to a th eo ry o f d efen se fo r w h i ch th ere i s any f oundat i on i n the e vi de nc e , e ve n though8

the evi dence m ay be w ea k, i nsuffi ci ent , i ncon si st ent , or of do ub t ful cr edi bi l i ty. ” U n ite d S ta te s v . L iv e ly , 8 0 3 F .2 d 1 1 2 4 , 1 1 2 6 ( 1 1 th C ir . 1 9 8 6 ) ( e m p h a s is in ori gi nal ) ( qu ot i ng U ni t ed S t at es v. Y ou ng , 46 4 F . 2d 16 0, 16 4 (5t h C i r. 19 72 )) . In de t e r m i ni ng w he the rthe r e i s a pr ope re vi de nt i a r y f ounda t i on f

orthe i ns truc t i on, the evi dence m ustbe vi ew ed i n t he l i gh tm ostfa vo rabl e t o t he ac cuse d. U ni t ed S t a t e s v. W i l l i a m s , 728 F . 2d 1402, 1404 ( 11th C i r . 1984) ( c i t i ng U ni t e d S t a t e s v. L ew i s, 59 2 F . 2d 12 82 (5th C i r. 19 79 )) . A pp el l antar gu es thatthe di stri ctcourterre d i n ref usi ng t o i nstructthe j ury on the defense of tra nsi t ory or t em po ra ry i nn ocentpo ss es si on of a w eapo n. M ore spec i fi ca l l y, he re qu es t ed i n w ri t i ng the fol l ow i ng char ge:

L a di e s a nd ge nt l e m e n, M r . P a l m a w oul d notbe gui l ty of the of f e ns e c ha r ge d he r e i f

y ou f i nd th a t h e la c k e d a n y c r im in a l p u rp o s e in pos s e s s i ng the a m m uni t i on a nd the pos s e s s i on of the am m un i t i on w as tra nsi t ory, i n o ther w or ds , i n l i ghtof

the e vi de nc e he r e i n y ou f i nd th a t th e d e f

e n d a n t to o k , o rw a s ta k in g , a d e q u a te m e a s ur e s t o r i d hi m s e l f

of pos s e s s i on of

the am m un i t i on as prom pt l y a s r ea sonabl y possi bl e. ( A ppe l l a nt ’ s B r . a tA 17 ( c i t a t i ons om i tt e d) . ) T he di s tr i c tc our tdi d nota l l ow the i ns truc t i on a nd di d nota l l ow a r gum e nton the i s s ue dur i ng A ppe l l a nt ’ s c l os i ng a r gum e nt . A ppe l l a ntnow c l a i m s tha the w a s de ni e d a f a i rtr i a l be c a us e he w a s not pe r m i tt e d t o r a i s e the the or y of t e m por a r y , i nnoc e ntpos s e s s i on. H ow e ve r , f orthe9

r e a s o n s d is c u s s e d b e lo w , th e r e w a s n o a b u s e o f d is c r e tio n , b e c a u s e th e f a c ts pr e s e nt e d a ttr i a l di d notpr ovi de the ne c e s s a r y f ounda t i on f

ora the or y of t e m por a r y , i nnoc e ntpos s e s s i on. T o p r o v e th a t a d e f

e n d a n t c o m m itte d a n o f f e n s e u n d e r1 8 U .S .C . § 922( g) ( 1) , the gove r nm e ntm us ts how tha t( 1) he ors he know i ngl y pos s e s s e d a fi rearm o r am m u n i t i o n , (2 ) h e o r sh e w as p rev i o u sl y co n v i ct ed o f an o ffen se puni s ha bl e by a t e r m of i m pr i s onm e nte xc e e di ng one y e a r , a nd ( 3) the f i r e a r m or a m m uni t i on w a s i n ora f f e c t i ng i nt e r s t a t e c om m e r c e . U ni t e d S t a t e s v. D e l e ve a ux, 2 0 5 F . 3 d 1 2 9 2 , 1 2 9 7 (1 1 th C i r. 2 0 0 0 ). W e h av e co n si st en t l y h el d th at§ 9 2 2 (g ) i s a s tr i c tl i a bi l i ty of

f e ns e tha t“ doe s notr e qui r e the pr os e c ut i on t o pr ove tha tthe cr i m i nal ac t s w er e don e w i th speci fi c c ri m i nal i nt ent . ” D el evea ux , 20 4 F . 3d at 1 2 9 8 ( c itin g U n ite d S ta te s v . T h o m p s o n , 2 5 F .3 d 1 5 5 8 , 1 5 6 3 - 6 4 & 1 5 6 3 n .4 ( 1 1 th C i r. 19 94 )) . H er e, P al m a c l ai m s thathe exam i ned and hel d t he un l oaded fi re arm on l y a t h is g ir lf r ie n d ’s r e q u e s t a n d c la im s th a t h e to u c h e d it f o ra m a tte ro f

m e r e s e c o n d s . H e arg u es th ath e “ o b t ai n ed th e fi rearm i n n o cen t l y an d ri d h i m sel f o f i ti n j u st se cond s a nd thathe hel ped h i s gi rl fr i end carry herpackage t o t he ca r. ” (A pp el l ant ’ s B r. at25 . ) B as ed on these cl ai m s, A pp el l antcl ai m s thathe w as e nt i t l e d t o a j ur y c ha r ge on the the or y of i nnoc e nt , tr a ns i t or y pos s e s s i on a nd tha theIn the past, wehave de clined to enter tain the theory

of a “mereinspection” de fense . 3 See United States v. B everly , 194 Fe d. Appx. 624, 628 (11th C ir. 2006) (unpublished) (holding that a district cour

t did not abuse its discretion in refusingto givea “mere inspec tion” instruction in a fire arm possession ca se). And while we have indicate d that a “justification defense ” may be available , we ha

ve ca utioned that the def

ense w ould be extremely

limit ed, only

applicableunder “ e xtraordin ary

c irc ums tanc e s. ”Se eDe le ve a ux, 2 05 F .3 d at 12 97 (agre e ingwi th o ther c irc uit s that such a de fensemay

be available but only

in extreme ly

limit ed circumstance s). Whil e it is a question of first impression in this circuit, several of our sister circuits have c on side re d th ethe or

y of “ te mpo ra ry inn oc e nt p os se ssi on ,”and thema jority havede c lin e d to rec ognize it. S ome circuits have expressly reje cted the de fense . See United States v. Johnson, 459 F.3d 990, 997- 98 (9th Cir. 2006) (holdingthat such a de fensewould undermine thestatutory design of § 922( g) ); United States v. Teemer, 394 F .3d 59, 62-65 (1st Cir. 2005) (rejec ting innocent possession def

ense a nd aff irming district c ourt’s re fusal to g ive jury an instruction on “fle eting ” or “transitory” possession); United States v. Mercado, 412 F .3d 243, 250-52 (1st Cir. 2005) (rejec ting innocent possession defenseand holdingthat even momenta ry or fleeting possession of a firear

m is sufficient under

the statute); United States v. Gilber t, 430 F.3d 214, 218 (4th Cir. 2005) (re

jectingthe proposal of

an exception to § 922(g )(1) when the de fenda nt had no illicit moti ve and a ttempted to quickly

rid himself of the f

irea rm). Some havereje cted substantially

simil ar de fense s. See United States v. Hendricks, 319 F .3d 993, 1004-05 (7th Cir. 20 03 ) (ho ldingthat only

jus tif ic atio n d e fens e s w ould b ere c ognize d) ; Unit e d St ate s v . A dkins , 196 F.3d 1112, 1115 ( 10th Cir. 1999) (holding that trial court ac ted properly in refusingto give jur y ins tr uc tio n o n “ fl e e tin gpo sse ssi on ”the or y ). Th eSe c on d Circuit

ha s h e ld t

hat th ede fens e would not apply

to the case s that have be en pre sented to them, base d on the facts as deve loped at trial. See United States v. Williams, 389 F.3d 402, 405 (2d Cir. 2004) (holdingthat the defendant’s possession of the f irea rm was not so fleeting a s to warrant an instruction on temporar y innocent possession); United States v. Paul, 110 F.3d 869, 872 ( 2d Cir. 1997) (holdingthat possession was “not so fle etingas to extend the statute beyond its arguable limits”). The District of Columbia Circuit is the only court that ha s held otherwise . See United States v. Mason, 233 F.3d 619, 624- 25 (D.C. Cir. 2000) (de finingand apply ing thetransitory inn oc e nt p os se ssi on

de fens e ). Th at c ourt

very na rrow ly de fine s th elim its of

thede fens eto situations where thefirea rm was obtaine d by

innocent mea

ns and for no illicit purpose and where the possession wa s transitory in light of the c ircumstance s. I d. at 624.

10 s houl d ha ve be e n pe r m i tt e d t o a r gue tha thi s br i e f ha ndl i ng of

the f i r e a r m a nd of the am m un i t i on di d n otconst i tut e “ po ss es si on ” und er18 U . S . C . § 9 22 (g)( 1). W e have never bef

ore r ec og ni ze d t he avai l abi l i ty of a n “ i nn ocenttra nsi t ory po ss es si on ” def

ense i n a fi re arm po ss es si on ca se , and w e nee d n otdeci de that 3 i s s ue t oda y . E ve n a s s um i ng ar gue ndo thatsuch a def

ense w er e a vai l abl e, i tw as11

no tsupp ort ed by the evi dence i n t hi s c as e. A ttri al the go vernm entpres ent ed un cont rovert ed e vi de nc e tha tA ppe l l a nte nt e r e d the gun s hop a nd s hoot i ng r a nge on tw o o cc as i on s, thathe ph ys i ca l l y pi cked up the K i m ber . 45 ca l i ber f i re arm , that he r e pe a t e dl y r e f

e r r e d t o the f

i r e a r m a s “ m y gun, ” a nd tha the r e que s t e d, pu rc hase d, and carr i ed aw ay am m un i t i on for the fi re arm . F urtherm ore, the very re as on w hy A pp el l ant ’ s posse ss i on of the am m un i t i on di d n otext end for a l on ger pe r i od of t i m e w a s hi s a r r e s tupon e xi t i ng A c e ’ s a nd the of f i c e r s ’ s e i z ur e of

the box of bul l e t s . I nde e d, A ppe l l a ntpr e s e nt e d no a f f i r m a t i ve e vi de nc e w ha t s oe ve rtha the att em pt ed t o ri d h i m se l f of the am m un i t i on . T hese fa ct s s i m pl y do n otsupp ortan “i n n o ce n t tra n sito ry p o ss es sio n ” in stru ctio n . M o re o v er , th e trial co u rt’s in s tru c tio n s d e f

in in g “k n o w in g ly ” a n d “p o s s e s s io n ” a d e q u a te ly a n d a c c u r a te ly e xpl a i ne d the l e ve l of

c ons c i ous c ontr ol ove rthe f i r e a r m a nd the a m m uni t i on r e q u ir e d u n d e rth e la w . F o rth e s e r e a s o n s , th e d is tr ic t c o u r t d id n o t a b u s e its di s c r e t i on i n r e f

us i ng t o i ns truc tthe j ur y r e ga r di ng a “ t e m por a r y i nnoc e nt p o s s e s s i o n ” d e f

e n s e t o th e p o s s e s s i o n o f a f i r e a r m. B . C on d u c t of

T r i al Ju d ge W e r e vi e w a di s tr i c tj udge ’ s c onduc tdur i ng tr i a l f ora n a bus e of

di s c r e t i on a s w e l l . S e e U ni t e d S t a t e s v. V e rbi t s ka y a , 406 F . 3d 1324, 1337 ( 11th C i r . 2005) ( c itin g U n ite d S ta te s v . C o x , 6 6 4 F .2 d 2 5 7 , 2 5 9 ( 1 1 th C ir . 1 9 8 1 ) ) . “[ I ]n o r d e rtoInd e e d, thetrial ju dg edis mis se d th ejur y on se veral oc c a sio ns in o rde r to maint ain 4 prop e r c ontrol o f t

heproc e e ding s. Whil eAppe lla nt c ontend s th at on ec omm e nt w a s madejus t as the fir st juror was reenteringthe cour troom, the district court madea factual findingthat the juror had n ot ye t entere d th ero om. (S e eR. at 77 8 ( “ Iwa s w atc hinga nd no on ewa s c ominginto thec ourt ro om. ” ). ) Thejudg edid

no t a bu seher disc retio n in

makingthi s d e terminatio n, no r did she abuseher discretion in refusingto givea curative instruction. 12 am ou ntt o revers i bl e e rr or, a j ud ge’ s r em arks m ustdem on stra t e s uch p ervasi ve bi as a nd unf a i r ne s s tha tthe y pr e

j udi c e one of

the pa r t i e s i n the c a s e . ” U ni t e d S t a t e s v. R a m ir e z - C h ile l, 2 8 9 F .3 d 7 4 4 , 7 5 0 n .6 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 2 ) . A ppe l l a nta r gue s tha tthe di s tr i c tc our tj udge m a de s e ve r a l ne ga t i ve r e m a r ks abou tdefe nse c ou nsel w hi ch re sul t ed i n p re j ud i ce t o h i s c l i ent . A pp el l antar gu es th at th e “p er v as iv ely d em ea n in g trea tm en t” o f d ef en se co u n se l an d th e trial ju d g e’s re fu sa l t o g iv e a cu ra ti v e in stru ctio n to th e ju ry w ar ra n t a n ew trial. (A p p ellan t’ s B r. at1 7 . ) W e d i sag ree an d co n cl u d e, i n st ead , th atth e d i stri ctco u rtd i d n o tab u se i t s d i scret i o n an d th ata n ew tri al i s u n n ecessary. Iti s app ar entfr om the re cord thaton se vera l occa si on s, the di stri ctcourt a d m o n is h e d d e f

e n s e c o u n s e l a n d e x p r e s s e d its d is p le a s u r e w ith h is tr ia l te c h n iq u e s . H o w ev er, al l o f th ese i n st an ces o ccu rred o u t si d e th e p resen ce o f th e j u ry. B ecau se 4 a “ c l e a re f

f e c to n th e j u r y i s r e q u i r e d t o r e v e r s e f o rc o m m e n tb y th e tr i a l j u d g e , ” we c onc l ude tha ta ne w tr i a l i s notw a r r a nt e d. U ni t e d S t a t e s v. R oc ha n, 563 F . 2d 12 46 , 12 50 (5th C i r. 19 77 ).13 I I I . CONCL US I ON W e c o n c lu d e th a t th e d is tr ic t c o u r t d id n o t a b u s e its d is c r e tio n w h e n it r e f us e d t o i ns truc tthe j ur y on A ppe l l a nt ’ s the or y of t e m por a r y i nnoc e ntpos s e s s i on o f a f ir e a r m . F u r th e r , th e d is tr ic t ju d g e ’s c o n d u c t in th is c a s e d o e s n o t w a r r a n t a new tri al . A cc ordi ng l y, w e a ff i rm P al m a’ s c on vi ct i on and sent ence . AF F I RME D.