United States of America v. Stephen Biviano Zapata

United States Court of Appeals
For the Eighth Circuit
___________________________
No. 25-2000
___________________________
United States of America
lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee
v.
Stephen Biviano Zapata
lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant
____________
Appeal from United States District Court
for the District of South Dakota - Central
____________
Submitted: June 15, 2026
Filed: June 18, 2026
[Unpublished]
____________
Before LOKEN, KELLY, and KOBES, Circuit Judges.
____________
PER CURIAM.
Stephen Zapata appeals after he pled guilty to unlawful possession of a firearm
as an unlawful user of a controlled substance in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(3),

-- 1 of 2 --

and the district court1 sentenced him to 27 months in prison. He argues the district
court erred by denying his motion to dismiss the indictment on the ground that the
statute is unconstitutional on its face under the Second Amendment. Upon careful
review, we conclude that the district court properly denied the motion, as Zapata’s
argument is foreclosed by circuit precedent. See United States v. Veasley, 98 F.4th
906, 918 (8th Cir. 2024); see also Mader v. United States, 654 F.3d 794, 800 (8th Cir.
2011) (en banc) (“[O]ne panel is bound by the decision of a prior panel.”) The
Supreme Court’s decision in United States v. Rahimi, 602 U.S. 680 (2024), does not
call into question our precedent. See United States v. Deng, 142 F.4th 1075, 1084
(8th Cir. 2025) (rejecting request to reconsider Veasley precedent post-Rahimi).
Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court.
______________________________
1The Honorable Eric C. Schulte, United States District Judge for the District
of South Dakota, adopting the report and recommendations of the Honorable Mark
A. Moreno, United States Magistrate Judge for the District of South Dakota.
-2-

-- 2 of 2 --