Kaleb Gilpin v. United States

United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 23-1131 ___________________________ Kaleb Leon Gilpin Petitioner - Appellant v. United States of America Respondent - Appellee ____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri - Central ____________ Submitted: April 18, 2024 Filed: May 2, 2024 [Unpublished] ____________ Before GRUENDER, GRASZ, and KOBES, Circuit Judges. ____________ PER CURIAM.

In September 2021, Kaleb Gilpin pleaded guilty to two counts of being a user of a controlled substance in possession of a firearm. See 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(3). The district court 1 sentenced Gilpin to 32 months’ imprisonment on each count, to be served concurrently, followed by a 3-year term of supervised release. In June 2022, the Supreme Court decided New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n, Inc. v. Bruen, 597 U.S. 1 (2022). The Court held that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to carry a handgun for self-defense outside the home. Id. at 10. After the Court issued its decision in Bruen, Gilpin filed a motion to vacate, set aside, or correct his sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255. He argued that his conviction violated the Second Amendment and that his counsel was ineffective for failing to challenge the constitutionality of § 922(g)(3). The district court denied Gilpin’s motion.

We granted a certificate of appealability solely on the issue of whether Gilpin’s conviction violates the Second Amendment in light of Bruen. See id. § 2253(c). In § 2255 proceedings, we review a district court’s conclusions on issues of law de novo. United States v. Duke, 50 F.3d 571, 576 (8th Cir. 1995). The constitutionality of § 922(g)(3) is a legal question subject to de novo review. See id. Due to our decision in United States v. Veasley, --- F.4th ----, 2024 WL 1649267 (8th Cir. Apr. 17, 2024), we discern no error by the district court.2 In Veasley, which was decided after Bruen, we rejected the defendant’s facial challenge to § 922(g)(3) under the Second Amendment. Id. at *9. We held that, for purposes of a facial challenge, § 922(g)(3) fits within the historical tradition of firearm regulation. Id. Therefore, we reject Gilpin’s facial challenge as foreclosed by Veasley.

Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court.