United States Court of Appeals

for the Fifth Circuit ____________

No. 21-50365

____________

United States of America, 

Plaintiff—Appellee,

versus

Dwaun Jabbar Guidry, 

Defendant—Appellant.

______________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court 

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. 5:20-CV-831

______________________________

Before Graves, Higginson, and Douglas, Circuit Judges.

Per Curiam:*

Dwaun Jabbar Guidry appeals the district court’s order denying his 

successive habeas petition challenging his conviction under 18 U.S.C. § 

924(c) in light of United States v. Davis, 139 S. Ct. 2319 (2019). For the 

reasons stated herein, we AFFIRM.

_____________________

* This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

July 11, 2023

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

Case: 21-50365 Document: 00516816060 Page: 1 Date Filed: 07/11/2023
No. 21-50365

2

I.

While working as a police officer in Balcones Heights, Texas, Guidry 

was charged in two separate incidents while on duty. Those events were the 

sexual assault of five women at the police station and the rape of another 

woman in his patrol car after a traffic stop. Guidry was convicted by a jury in 

2005 of (1) deprivation of rights under color of law by kidnapping in violation 

of 18 U.S.C. § 242; (2) deprivation of rights under color of law by aggravated 

sexual abuse in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 242; (3) carrying a firearm during and 

in relation to aggravated sexual abuse in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 

924(c)(1)(A)(i); and (4) conspiring to deprive persons of their rights under 

color of law in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 241. Guidry was sentenced to a total 

of 465 months imprisonment: 405 months on each of counts one and two, to 

be served concurrently; 60 months on count three, to be served consecutively 

to the sentence imposed on counts one, two and four; and 120 months on 

count four to be served concurrently with counts one and two. He was also 

sentenced to a total of five years of supervised release, five years concurrent 

on each of the first three counts, and three years concurrent on count four, 

restitution of $45,638, and a $400 mandatory assessment. 

On direct appeal, this court affirmed Guidry’s conviction on all four 

counts. See United States v. Guidry, 456 F.3d 493 (5th Cir. 2006). Guidry’s 

initial habeas petition, which raised claims of ineffective assistance of 

counsel, was denied in 2008. Guidry later timely sought and was denied leave 

to file a successive petition in light of Johnson v. United States, 576 U.S. 591, 

597-98 (2015), and Welch v. United States, 578 U.S. 120, 135 (2016). 

Case: 21-50365 Document: 00516816060 Page: 2 Date Filed: 07/11/2023
No. 21-50365

3

Of particular relevance here, this court granted Guidry permission in 

2020 to file a successive 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion to challenge his count three 

conviction under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) in light of Davis, 139 S. Ct. 2319. ECF 

19-51147, 17. The district court denied Guidry’s motion in part and 

dismissed without prejudice in part. The district court also granted a 

certificate of appealability (COA) as to Guidry’s § 924(c) claim. Guidry then 

filed this appeal. 

II.

Guidry asserts that the district court erred in denying his challenge to 

his conviction under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(3)(A) based on Davis, 139 S. Ct. 

2319. Guidry asserts that his conviction under § 924(c)(1)(A)(i) of carrying 

a firearm during and in relation to aggravated sexual abuse should be vacated 

for essentially two reasons: Because Davis concluded that the residual clause 

of § 924(c)(3)(B) is unconstitutionally vague; and because his predicate 

crime did not qualify as a COV under the elements clause of § 924(c)(3)(A).1

 

However, Guidry’s argument is foreclosed by the law of the case doctrine. 

See Tollett v. City of Kemah, 285 F.3d 357, 363 (5th Cir. 2002) (citation 

omitted) (“Under the law of the case doctrine, an issue of law or fact decided 

on appeal may not be reexamined either by the district court on remand or by 

the appellate court on a subsequent appeal.”).

In denying Guidry’s motion for authorization to file a successive 

habeas petition in 2016, a panel of this court relied on United States v. 

_____________________

1

 Guidry also asserts that he was convicted under § 242, not § 2241(a).

Case: 21-50365 Document: 00516816060 Page: 3 Date Filed: 07/11/2023
No. 21-50365

4

Williams, 343 F.3d 423, 432 & n.5 (5th Cir. 2003) in concluding that “the 

crime charged in count two satisfied the requirements for a crime of violence 

as set out in § 924(c)(3)(A) without requiring resort to the residual clause of 

§ 924(c)(3)(B).” ECF 16-50208, 47-2. Further, Guidry fails to argue for any 

exception to the law of the case doctrine. Thus, we will not reexamine this 

issue.

Accordingly, the order of the district court is AFFIRMED; and 

Guidry’s pro se motion to correct the brief that was carried with the case is 

DENIED as moot.

Case: 21-50365 Document: 00516816060 Page: 4 Date Filed: 07/11/2023