United States v. Quivadas Gaines

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
• Decided: May 1, 2026
• Docket: 24-3400
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________

No. 24-3400 ___________________________

United States of America

lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee

v.

Quivadas Quadell-Lee Gaines

lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant ____________

Appeal from United States District Court for the Southern District of Iowa - Eastern ____________

Submitted: April 28, 2026 Filed: May 1, 2026 [Unpublished] ____________

Before GRUENDER, GRASZ, and STRAS, Circuit Judges. ____________

PER CURIAM.

Quivadas Gaines appeals after he pleaded guilty to being a felon in possession of a firearm and the district court1 sentenced him to 115 months in prison. On appeal,

1 The Honorable Stephen H. Locher, United States District Judge for the Southern District of Iowa. Gaines argues that 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) is unconstitutional in light of New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n, Inc. v. Bruen, 597 U.S. 1 (2022), and that the district court erred in calculating his Guidelines range by imposing an enhancement for possessing a firearm in connection with another felony.

Upon careful review, we conclude that Gaines’s constitutional challenge is unavailing. We have held that section 922(g)(1) is not facially unconstitutional under Bruen. See United States v. Cunningham, 114 F.4th 671, 675 (8th Cir. 2024) (holding that the longstanding prohibition on possession of firearms by a felon is constitutional); see also United States v. Rahimi, 144 S. Ct. 1889 (2023) (upholding 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(8), the federal prohibition on possession of a firearm while subject to a domestic violence restraining order, as constitutional on its face). We also conclude that the district court did not err in applying the enhancement for possessing a firearm in connection with another felony, as the government presented adequate evidence that Gaines’s possession of the firearm was related to his theft. See United States v. Turner, 781 F.3d 374, 393 (8th Cir. 2015) (reviewing the construction and application of the Guidelines de novo; factual findings are reviewed for clear error).

Accordingly, we affirm. ______________________________

-2-