United States v. Leonard Higgins

Opinion

United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________

No. 25-2817 ___________________________

United States of America

lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee

v.

Leonard J. Higgins, also known as Antonious L. Higgins, also known as Anthonious L. Higgins

lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant ____________

Appeal from United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri - Kansas City ____________

Submitted: July 21, 2026 Filed: July 28, 2026 [Unpublished] ____________

Before LOKEN, L.R. SMITH, and BENTON, Circuit Judges. ____________ PER CURIAM.

Leonard Higgins appeals after the district court1 denied his motion to dismiss the indictment, found him guilty of being a felon in possession of a firearm, and sentenced him to 120 months in prison and 3 years of supervised release. On appeal, he challenges the constitutionality of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1).

Upon careful review, we conclude Higgins’s arguments as to the constitutionality of section 922(g)(1) are foreclosed by circuit precedent. See United States v. Eagle Chasing, 965 F.3d 647, 650 (8th Cir. 2020) (standard of review); United States v. Yielding, 657 F.3d 688, 702 (8th Cir. 2011) (same); United States v. Cunningham, 114 F.4th 671, 675 (8th Cir. 2024) (holding that § 922(g)(1) is facially constitutional); United States v. Jackson, 110 F.4th 1120, 1125-29 (8th Cir. 2024) (rejecting as-applied challenge to § 922(g)(1)), cert. denied, 145 S. Ct. 2708 (2025).

Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court. ______________________________

1 The Honorable David Gregory Kays, United States District Judge for the Western District of Missouri, adopting the report and recommendation of the Honorable Jill A. Morris, United States Magistrate Judge for the Western District of Missouri.

-2-