Jeffrey Gundersen v. United States

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
• Decided: January 21, 2025
• Docket: 24-1032
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

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Submitted: December 16, 2024 Filed: January 21, 2025 [Unpublished] ____________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’s 1 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. § 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-