Patrick Debouse appeals his conviction following a jury trial for being a felon in possession of a firearm. Debouse argues that the district court should have instructed the jury on transitory possession. De-bouse argues that the jury instruction he requested is supported by United States v. Panter, 688 F.2d 268, 269 (5th Cir. 1982).

Panter is inapposite, however, because Debouse did not possess a firearm in self-defense. See id. at 272. Because the instruction Debouse requested incorrectly stated the law and was without foundation in the evidence, the district court did not abuse its discretion when it declined to use it. See United States v. Tannehill, 49 F.3d 1049, 1057-58 (5th Cir. 1995); Panter, 688 F.2d at 269.

AFFIRMED.