United States v. Mani Deng, 104 F.4th 1052

Mani Panoam Deng was charged with unlawful possession of a firearm as a drug user under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(3).
Deng sought dismissal, arguing § 922(g)(3) violates the Second Amendment (both facially and as applied) and is void for vagueness.
The district court denied the facial Second Amendment challenge and deferred other arguments to be determined later.
Deng then pleaded guilty unconditionally, with no agreement to preserve appeal rights.
On appeal, he renewed his constitutional objections and argued the court improperly deferred ruling on his challenges.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Facial challenge to § 922(g)(3) under Second Amendment	Statute is unconstitutional on its face after NYSRPA v. Bruen	Circuit precedent upholds statute’s constitutionality	Statute is facially constitutional
As-applied Second Amendment challenge	Statute unconstitutional as applied to Deng	Deng waived claim by unconditional guilty plea	Waived by guilty plea
Vagueness of § 922(g)(3)	Statute is void for vagueness; does not give fair notice	Statute’s application to frequent marijuana users is clear	Not unconstitutionally vague as applied
Deferred ruling by district court	Erred by failing to decide all dismissal grounds pre-plea	Any error waived by the unconditional guilty plea	Waived by guilty plea

United States v. Veasley, 98 F.4th 906 (8th Cir. 2024) (upholding facial constitutionality of § 922(g)(3) following Bruen)
New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass'n v. Bruen, 597 U.S. 1 (2022) (Second Amendment text-and-history methodology established)
United States v. Seay, 620 F.3d 919 (8th Cir. 2010) (unconditional guilty plea waives non-jurisdictional claims, including as-applied constitutional defenses)
United States v. Morgan, 230 F.3d 1067 (8th Cir. 2000) (guilty plea forecloses most pre-plea constitutional claims)
United States v. Bramer, 832 F.3d 908 (8th Cir. 2016) (void-for-vagueness challenge must focus on own conduct, not hypotheticals)