United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________

No. 24-1042 ___________________________

United States of America

Plaintiff - Appellee

v.

Joshua Michael Faust

Defendant - Appellant ____________

Appeal from United States District Court for the Northern District of Iowa - Eastern ____________

Submitted: December 16, 2024 Filed: January 10, 2025 [Unpublished] ____________

Before SMITH, GRUENDER, and STRAS, Circuit Judges. ____________

PER CURIAM.

Joshua Faust pleaded guilty to being a felon in possession of a firearm, see 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1), preserving his right to appeal the district court’s 1 denial of his motion to dismiss the felon-in-possession charge. He was sentenced to 84 months’

1 The Honorable Leonard T. Strand, Chief Judge, United States District Judge for the Northern District of Iowa. imprisonment. Faust appeals, arguing that the felon-in-possession statute, § 922(g)(1), violates the Second Amendment both on its face and as applied to him.

Precedent forecloses Faust’s arguments. Following the Supreme Court’s decision in United States v. Rahimi, 602 U.S. 680 (2024), we held that “[t]he longstanding prohibition on possession of firearms by felons is constitutional,” United States v. Cunningham, 114 F.4th 671, 675 (8th Cir. 2024), and that there is “no need for felony-by-felony litigation regarding the constitutionality of § 922(g)(1),” United States v. Jackson, 110 F.4th 1120, 1125 (8th Cir. 2024). Accordingly, Faust’s facial and as-applied constitutional challenges to § 922(g)(1) fail. 2

Affirmed. ______________________________

2 Even if Faust could bring an as-applied challenge, he would not succeed. His lengthy criminal record includes over fifteen convictions, including four assaults (two with a dangerous weapon), disorderly conduct, and violation of a protective order. That record, combined with his history of noncompliance while incarcerated and while subject to probation, demonstrates that Faust “pose[s] a credible threat to the physical safety of others.” See Rahimi, 602 U.S. at 700; see also United States v. Jackson, 85 F.4th 468, 470-72 (8th Cir. 2023) (Stras, J., dissenting from denial of reh’g en banc) (explaining that, based on Founding-era history, the government can strip “dangerous” individuals of their firearms).

-2-