USA v. KEONDRE CONLEY

1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
FAYETTEVILLE DIVISION
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 	PLAINTIFF
v. 	CRIMINAL NO. 5:25-50014-TLB
KEONDRE CONLEY 	DEFENDANT
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF A MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Defendant Keondre Conley filed a letter Motion to Vacate or Modify Sentence. (ECF No.
59). This Motion was originally sent to the Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit who forwarded
the Motion to the District Court for filing. (ECF No. 59-1). The Motion was then referred to the
undersigned on January 12, 2025, by Chief U.S. District Judge Timothy L. Brooks. Thereafter,
Defendant was provided with a standard habeas corpus 28 U.S.C. § 2255 form and directed to file
an amended Motion to Vacate by February 10, 2026. (ECF No. 60). 	Defendant has failed to
comply with the undersigned’s order, and his Motion to Vacate is subject to dismissal on this
ground alone. Defendant’s Motion also lacks merit as explained below.
Defendant was charged with and pled guilty to one (1) count of felon in possession of a
firearm in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). (ECF Nos. 1, 39, 41). On October 20, 2025, Judge
Brooks imposed upon Defendant a sentence of, inter alia, imprisonment for forty-one (41) months
in the Bureau of Prisons. (ECF Nos. 49, 50). Defendant appealed his Judgment to the Court of
Appeals for the Eighth Circuit (ECF No. 52); no appellate decision has been reached as of the date
of this Recommendation.
Defendant contends that, pursuant to the June 23, 2022, decision of the United States
Supreme Court in New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n, Inc. v. Bruen, 591 U.S.1 (2022), his Second
Amendment rights were violated in this prosecution, and he is entitled to be released from prison.
Case 5:25-cr-50014-TLB Document 61 Filed 02/23/26 Page 1 of 3 PageID #:
<pageID>

2
As additional support, Defendant cites Range v. Att'y Gen., 124 F.4th 218 (3d Cir. 2024), and
United States v. Prince, 700 F.Supp.3d 663 (N.D. Ill. 2023).
Contrary to Defendant’s argument, the Supreme Court made clear in Bruen that its holding
is “in keeping with Heller.” Id. When it decided Heller in 2008, the Supreme Court stated that
“‘longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons’ are ‘presumptively lawful,’
and cited ‘historical justifications’ on which it could ‘expound’ later.” United States v. Williams,
24 F.4th 1209, 1211 (8th Cir. 2022) (quoting Heller, 554 U.S. at 626-27 & n.26, 635). Moreover,
Defendant’s citation to decisions from the Third Circuit and an Illinois district court are not binding
precedent in the Eighth Circuit who has found (contrary to Range, supra) § 922(g) constitutional
post-Bruen. United States v. Jackson, 110 F.4th 1120, 1129 (8th Cir. 2024) (Chief Judge Colloton
noted that given the Supreme Court’s assurances in Bruen and Heller, “and the history that
supports them. . , there is no need for felony-by-felony litigation regarding the constitutionality of
§ 922(g)(1).”), reh'g en banc denied, 121 F.4th 656 (2024); see also United States v. White, 2024
WL 3402741, at *3 (D. Minn. July 11, 2024).
While any number of gun cases presently percolating may be heard in the future by the
Supreme Court, no past decision of the United States Supreme Court has declared § 922(g)(1)
unconstitutional and applied that decision retroactively. Should a “new rule of constitutional law”
apply in the future, Defendant may be entitled to again seek relief in this Court. That day, however,
has not yet arrived.
For these reasons, it is recommended that Defendant’s Motion to Vacate or Modify
Sentence (ECF No. 59) be DENIED for failure to comply with this Court’s orders and as lacking
merit under Bruen, supra.
Case 5:25-cr-50014-TLB Document 61 Filed 02/23/26 Page 2 of 3 PageID #:
<pageID>

3
The parties have fourteen days from receipt of our report and recommendation in
which to file written objections pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). The failure to file timely
objections may result in waiver of the right to appeal questions of facts. The parties are
reminded that objections must be both timely and specific to trigger de novo review by the
district court.
RECOMMENDED this 23rd day of February 2026.
________________________________
CHRISTY COMSTOCK
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Case 5:25-cr-50014-TLB Document 61 Filed 02/23/26 Page 3 of 3 PageID #:
<pageID>