Kaleb Gilpin v. United States, No. 23-1131 (8th Cir. 2024)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
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Court for the Western District of Missouri - Central ____________ Submitted: April 18, 2024 Filed: May 2, 2024 [Unpublished] ____________ Before GRUENDER, GRASZ, and KOBES, Circuit Judges.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 court 1 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. 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-
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
