United States v. John Balentine

Opinion

United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit

___________________________

No. 24-3433

___________________________

United States of America

lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee

v.

John Balentine

lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant

____________

Appeal from United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas - Northern

____________

Submitted: March 5, 2026 Filed: March 10, 2026

[Unpublished]

____________

Before SHEPHERD, KELLY, and ERICKSON, Circuit Judges.

____________

PER CURIAM.

John Balentine appeals after he pleaded guilty to being a felon in possession of a firearm. He argues that the district court1 erred by denying his motion to dismiss

1 The Honorable Lee P. Rudofsky, United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Arkansas.

the indictment because the prosecution violated the Second Amendment, both facially and as applied to him. Upon careful review, we conclude that the district court properly denied the motion, as Balentine’s argument is foreclosed by our precedent. See United States v. Seay, 620 F.3d 919, 923 (8th Cir. 2010) (standard of review); United States v. Jackson, 110 F.4th 1120, 1124-25 (8th Cir. 2024), cert. denied, 145 S. Ct. 2708 (2025); United States v. Cunningham, 114 F.4th 671, 675 (8th Cir. 2024). Accordingly, we affirm.

______________________________