Jeffrey Scott Gundersen v. United States of America

United States Court of Appeals
For the Eighth Circuit
___________________________
No. 24-1032
___________________________
Jeffrey Scott Gundersen
Petitioner - Appellant
v.
United States of America
Respondent - Appellee
____________
Appeal from United States District Court
for the Southern District of Iowa - Central
____________
Submitted: December 16, 2024
Filed: January 21, 2025
[Unpublished]
____________
Before SMITH, GRUENDER, and STRAS, Circuit Judges.
____________
PER CURIAM.
Jeffrey Scott Gundersen appeals the district court’s1 denial of his 28 U.S.C.
§ 2255 motion. The district court granted a certificate of appealability on his claim
that counsel was ineffective for failing to challenge the constitutionality of 18 U.S.C.
1 The Honorable Rebecca Goodgame Ebinger, United States District Judge for
the Southern District of Iowa.

-- 1 of 2 --

-2-
§ 922(g)(1) under New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n, Inc. v. Bruen, 597 U.S. 1
(2022).
We review de novo the district court’s denial of Gundersen’s § 2255 motion.
See Bear Stops v. United States, 339 F.3d 777, 779 (8th Cir. 2003). To establish
ineffective assistance of counsel, Gundersen must show that counsel’s performance
was deficient and that the deficient performance prejudiced the defense. See
Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687 (1984). We need not decide whether
counsel’s performance was deficient if the deficient performance would not have
prejudiced the defense. See id. at 697.
We conclude that Gundersen was not prejudiced by counsel’s failure to
challenge the constitutionality of § 922(g)(1). 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). Thus,
Gundersen would not have prevailed on his constitutional challenge to § 922(g)(1),
and we need not decide whether counsel’s performance was deficient for failing to
raise the issue. The district court did not err in denying Gundersen’s § 2255 motion
based on ineffective assistance of counsel.2
Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court.
______________________________
2 Even if Gundersen could bring an as-applied challenge under Bruen and
Rahimi, he would not prevail. He has a lengthy and violent criminal record, which
demonstrates that he “pose[s] a credible threat to the physical safety of others.”
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 of 2 --