Linder Kai Divos v. United States of America

United States Court of Appeals
For the Eighth Circuit
___________________________
No. 25-1616
___________________________
Linder Kai Divos
lllllllllllllllllllllPetitioner - Appellant
v.
United States of America
lllllllllllllllllllllRespondent - Appellee
____________
Appeal from United States District Court
for the Southern District of Iowa - Central
____________
Submitted: July 15, 2026
Filed: July 20, 2026
[Unpublished]
____________
Before SHEPHERD, BENTON, and KELLY, Circuit Judges.
____________
PER CURIAM.
Linder Divos appeals the district court’s1 denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion
following his guilty plea to possessing with the intent to distribute fentanyl and being
1The Honorable Rebecca Goodgame Ebinger, United States District Judge for
the Southern District of Iowa.

-- 1 of 2 --

a felon in possession of a firearm. The district court granted a certificate of
appealability as to Divos’s claim that his plea counsel should have challenged his
felon-in-possession charge based on New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n, Inc. v.
Bruen, 597 U.S. 1, 70-71 (2022) (requirement that applicant for license to carry
firearm show special need for self-defense violated Second Amendment), and
reserved in his plea agreement his right to press such a challenge. Appellate counsel
has moved to withdraw, and the government seeks summary affirmance.
Upon careful review, we conclude that the district court did not err in denying
section 2255 relief. See Deltoro-Aguilera v. United States, 625 F.3d 434, 436 (8th
Cir. 2010) (standard of review). The record squarely shows that any Bruen defense
stood little chance of success given the legal landscape at the time of Divos’s plea,
and plea counsel was not constitutionally obliged to raise arguments in tension with
settled authority. See Hill v. Lockhart, 474 U.S. 52, 59 (1985) (in context of plea-
related ineffective-assistance claim based on failure to advise of defense, prejudice
inquiry largely depends on whether defense would have succeeded); Anderson v.
United States, 762 F.3d 787, 794 (8th Cir. 2014) (counsel does not perform
deficiently by failing to object to correct application of settled law within circuit or
failing to anticipate change in law); see also United States v. Jackson, 110 F.4th 1120,
1125-29 (8th Cir. 2024) (Bruen did not disturb prior Supreme Court statements
concerning longstanding prohibitions on possession of firearms by felons).
Accordingly, we grant appellate counsel’s motion to withdraw, affirm the
judgment, and deny as moot the government’s motion for summary affirmance.
______________________________
-2-

-- 2 of 2 --