Kaleb Leon Gilpin v. United States of America

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[Unpublished]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 court1 sentenced Gilpin to 32 months’ imprisonment on each count, to be
1 The Honorable Roseann A. Ketchmark, United States District Judge for the
Western District of Missouri.

-- 1 of 2 --

-2-
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.
______________________________
2 This case was originally set for oral argument on December 12, 2023. In
November 2023, we granted the Government’s unopposed motion to stay the case
pending this court’s decision in Veasley. An opinion and judgment in Veasley were
filed on April 17, 2024.

-- 2 of 2 --