United States of America v. Brandon Allen 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[Unpublished]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-
1 The Honorable Rebecca Goodgame Ebinger, United States District Judge for
the Southern District of Iowa.

-- 1 of 2 --

-2-
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.
______________________________
2 Even if Haynes could bring an as-applied challenge, cf. United States v.
Veasley, 98 F.4th 906, 909 (8th Cir. 2024), it would not succeed. When officers
stopped him, he threatened to fight them while he “aggressively” stabbed the
dashboard of his car with a knife. Once in jail, he had to be forcefully put into a
straitjacket after making “repeated physical advances” and telling the officers he
would kill them “next time.” Add his lengthy criminal history, and it is safe to say
that Haynes “pose[s] a credible threat to the physical safety of others.” United States
v. Rahimi, 602 U.S. 680, 693 (2024); see 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 of 2 --