United States v. Owen Simonson

Opinion

United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit

___________________________

No. 24-2051

___________________________

United States of America

Plaintiff - Appellee

v.

Owen Zachary Simonson

Defendant - Appellant

____________

Appeal from United States District Court for the District of South Dakota - Southern

____________

Submitted: September 15, 2025 Filed: October 8, 2025

[Unpublished]

____________

Before BENTON, GRASZ, and KOBES, Circuit Judges.

____________

PER CURIAM.

Owen Zachary Simonson pled guilty to being a felon in possession of a firearm in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1) and 924(a)(8). The district court 1

1 The Honorable Karen E. Schreier, United States District Judge for the District of South Dakota.

sentenced him to time served. He appeals the denial of his motion to dismiss the indictment. Having jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, this court affirms.

Owen argues the district court should have dismissed his indictment because the felon-in-possession statute violates the Second Amendment both on its face and as applied to him. This court reviews de novo. United Sates v. Seay, 620 F.3d 919, 923 (8th Cir. 2010). As he concedes, this argument is foreclosed by binding Eighth Circuit precedent. United States v. Cunningham, 114 F.4th 671, 675 (8th Cir. 2024) (“The longstanding prohibition on possession of firearms by felons is constitutional, and the district court properly denied the motion to dismiss.”); United States v. Jackson, 110 F.4th 1120, 1124–25 (8th Cir. 2024) (holding there is “no need for felony-by-felony litigation regarding the constitutionality of § 922(g)(1)”).

*******

The judgment is affirmed.

______________________________