United States v. Brandon Haynes

United States Court of Appeals

For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 24-1242 ___________________________ United States of America

Plaintiff - Appellee v. Brandon Allen Haynes Defendant - Appellant ____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the Southern District of Iowa - Eastern ____________ Submitted: February 10, 2025 Filed: May 1, 2025 [Unpublished] ____________

Before LOKEN, BENTON, and STRAS, Circuit Judges.

____________ PER CURIAM.

Brandon Haynes pleaded guilty to unlawfully possessing a firearm and ammunition, see 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1), 924(a)(8), after the district court1 denied his motion to dismiss the indictment. On appeal, he argues that the felon-in- possession statute violates the Second Amendment, both facially and as applied to him. Circuit precedent forecloses both arguments, so we affirm. See Mader v. United States, 654 F.3d 794, 800 (8th Cir. 2011) (en banc) (“It is a cardinal rule in our circuit that one panel is bound by the decision of a prior panel.” (citation omitted)).

Under federal law, felons like Haynes cannot possess firearms. See 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) (disarming those “who ha[ve] been convicted” of “a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year”). In two recent cases, we held that this prohibition is constitutional, regardless of the facts of the crime itself, the nature of the underlying felony, or the defendant’s history.2 See United States v. Cunningham, 114 F.4th 671, 675 (8th Cir. 2024) (concluding that it is facially constitutional); United States v. Jackson, 110 F.4th 1120, 1125 (8th Cir. 2024) (cutting off as-applied challenges too). To the extent Haynes disagrees with either decision, his remedy lies with the en banc court, not with us. See Liberty Mut. Ins. Co. v. Elgin Warehouse & Equip., 4 F.3d 567, 571 (8th Cir. 1993) (“In this circuit only an en banc court may overrule a panel decision.”). We accordingly affirm the judgment of the district court.