United States v. Lynch, 0:22-cr-00356

Kevin Ronnell Lynch pleaded guilty to being a felon in possession of a firearm, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1), 924(e), after being found with a loaded pistol following a police stop.
He admitted to prior convictions qualifying him for an Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA) sentencing enhancement and received a 180-month sentence.
Lynch did not appeal the conviction but later filed pro se motions to vacate his sentence under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, alleging various constitutional and ineffective assistance of counsel claims.
His plea agreement expressly waived collateral attack rights under § 2255 except for claims of ineffective assistance or retroactive changes in law.
The government opposed all seven grounds raised, and the court reviewed the matter without an evidentiary hearing.

Issue	Lynch's Argument	Government's Argument	Held
Constitutionality of § 922(g)(1)	Statute banning felons from firearm possession is unconstitutional	Statute is constitutional under Eighth Circuit precedent	Lynch waived this claim and, regardless, it's meritless under circuit law
ACCA Enhancement	Jury, not judge, should have found prior offenses were separate; enhancement inappropriate	Lynch admitted facts in his plea; enhancement proper by admission	Waived and meritless since facts were freely admitted in guilty plea
Ineffective Assistance: Motion to Suppress	Counsel was ineffective for not trying to suppress gun evidence	Lynch had no standing as passenger; motion would be futile	No ineffectiveness; suppression motion properly not raised
Ineffective Assistance: Other Claims	Counsel should have challenged statute’s constitutionality, ACCA, & gun forfeiture	Such challenges were legally unsupported and would have failed	No deficient performance or prejudice; all ineffective assistance claims rejected

Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (standard for ineffective assistance of counsel)
DeRoo v. United States, 223 F.3d 919 (collateral attack waivers are generally enforceable)
United States v. Cunningham, 114 F.4th 671 (§ 922(g)(1) felony firearm ban held constitutional)
Erlinger v. United States, 602 U.S. 821 (jury must decide if prior offenses were committed on separate occasions, but fact can be admitted in plea)
Hill v. Lockhart, 474 U.S. 52 (standard for prejudice in context of a guilty plea)