Xzavier Justin Lee Clark v. United States of America

United States Court of Appeals
For the Eighth Circuit
___________________________
No. 23-3104
___________________________
Xzavier Justin Lee Clark
Petitioner - Appellant
v.
United States of America
Respondent - Appellee
____________
Appeal from United States District Court
for the Southern District of Iowa - Central
____________
Submitted: November 19, 2024
Filed: January 3, 2025
____________
Before COLLOTON, Chief Judge, BENTON and KELLY, Circuit Judges.
____________
BENTON, Circuit Judge.
Xzavier Justin Lee Clark pled guilty to possession of a firearm as an unlawful
user of a controlled substance in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(3). The district
court1 sentenced him to 120 months in prison. By a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion, Clark
argues the conviction violated the Second Amendment. The district court dismissed
the motion. This court granted a certificate of appealability solely on this
1 The Honorable Rebecca Goodgame Ebinger, United States District Judge for
the Southern District of Iowa.

-- 1 of 3 --

-2-
constitutional question. Having jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, this court
affirms.
Clark claims that 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(3) is unconstitutional, facially and as
applied to him. To prove facial unconstitutionality, he must “establish that no set of
circumstances exists under which the Act would be valid.” United States v. Salerno,
481 U.S. 739, 745 (1987). A facial claim survives a guilty plea. United States v.
Morgan, 230 F.3d 1067, 1071 (8th Cir. 2000). “Our review of a district court’s
ruling in a § 2255 proceeding is de novo both on matters of law and on mixed
questions of law and fact.” Roundtree v. United States, 751 F.3d 923, 925 (8th Cir.
2014).
Clark’s facial challenge is defeated by controlling precedent. See United
States v. Veasley, 98 F.4th 906, 918 (8th Cir. 2024) (finding § 922(g)(3)
constitutional because “at least some drug users and addicts fall within a class of
people who historically have had limits placed on their right to bear arms”). See
also United States v. Tucker, 2024 WL 3634232, at *2 (8th Cir. Aug. 2, 2024)
(unpublished) (rejecting a facial challenge to § 922(g)(3) because “another panel of
this court held the law is not facially unconstitutional” in Veasley); United States v.
Shannon, 2024 WL 4224030, at *1 (8th Cir. Sept. 18, 2024) (unpublished) (finding
the defendant’s facial challenge to § 922(g)(3) fails “as he has not demonstrated any
error that was clear or obvious under current law”).
Clark alleges § 922(g)(3) is unconstitutional as applied to him. A guilty plea
forecloses Clark’s as-applied constitutional challenge. United States v. Vaughan,
13 F.3d 1186, 1187 (8th Cir. 1994) (“A defendant’s knowing and intelligent guilty
plea forecloses independent claims relating to the deprivation of constitutional rights
that occurred prior to the entry of the guilty plea.”); United States v. Seay, 620 F.3d
919, 922 n.3 (8th Cir. 2010) (“To the extent that Seay challenges the constitutionality
of § 922(g)(3) as applied to him, we hold that this argument is foreclosed by his
guilty plea.”); United States v. Deng, 104 F.4th 1052, 1054 (8th Cir. 2024) (finding

-- 2 of 3 --

-3-
Deng’s “as-applied challenge” to § 922(g)(3) “fails too because he waived it by
pleading guilty unconditionally”).
* * * * * * *
The judgment is affirmed.
______________________________

-- 3 of 3 --