IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-31277

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

SHAWN R. THIBODEAUX,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Louisiana

USDC No. 6:12-CR-42

Before REAVLEY, DENNIS, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Shawn R. Thibodeaux challenges his guilty plea convictions for carrying 

a firearm during and in relation to a drug trafficking crime, in violation of 

18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1); possession with intent to distribute methamphetamine,

in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1); and possession of a firearm in furtherance 

of a drug trafficking crime, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1). He was 

sentenced, inter alia, to the statutory minimum term of imprisonment—a total 

 

* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not 

be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH 

CIR. R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

June 25, 2015

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 14-31277 Document: 00513093574 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/25/2015
No. 14-31277

2

of 40 years, consisting of five years for the illegal carrying conviction, 10 years 

for the drug distribution conviction, and 25 years for the firearm possession

conviction.

Thibodeaux argues that the district court violated Federal Rule of 

Criminal Procedure 11(b)(1) by failing to more explicitly advise him that the 

three sentences must be imposed consecutively. See 18 U.S.C. 

§ 924(c)(1)(D)(ii). Specifically, he asserts that the district court, in explaining 

the role of the advisory guidelines scheme, “blurred the distinction” between 

the advisory guidelines and the mandatory minimum penalties. At 

rearraignment, the district court informed Thibodeaux that it had “the 

authority, in some circumstances, to impose a sentence that is more severe or 

less severe than the sentence called for in the [G]uidelines[.]” 

Because Thibodeaux did not object in the district court, review is only for 

plain error. See United States v. Oliver, 630 F.3d 397, 411 (5th Cir. 2011). To 

prevail on plain error review, Thibodeaux must show a forfeited error that is 

clear or obvious and affects his substantial rights. See Puckett v. United States, 

556 U.S. 129, 135 (2009). To establish that his substantial rights have been 

affected, he “must show a reasonable probability that, but for the error, he 

would not have entered the plea.” United States v. Dominguez Benitez, 542 

U.S. 74, 83 (2004). Where an appellant’s argument raises “an issue of first 

impression” or “require[s] an extension of precedent,” this court will “conclude 

that any error was not plain or obvious.” United States v. Garcia-Gonzalez, 

714 F.3d 306, 318 (5th Cir. 2013); see also United States v. Evans, 587 F.3d 

667, 671 (5th Cir. 2000) (“We ordinarily do not find plain error when we have 

not previously addressed an issue.” (internal quotation marks and citations 

omitted)). 

 Case: 14-31277 Document: 00513093574 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/25/2015
No. 14-31277

3

Thibodeaux has failed to show that the district court committed plain or 

obvious error. Insofar as Thibodeaux complains that the district court’s correct 

statement regarding the nature of the advisory guidelines scheme “blurred the 

distinction” between the advisory guidelines and the mandatory minimum 

penalties, see FED R. CRIM. P. 11(b)(1)(M), he points to no authority to support 

the proposition that the district court erred in discussing Thibodeaux’s 

sentencing exposure. The record reflects that the district court did inform 

Thibodeaux, as to the § 924(c)(1) convictions, that those sentences would be 

imposed consecutively to any other term of imprisonment. A district court is 

not required to inform a defendant “of every ‘but for’ consequence which follows 

from a guilty plea.” United States v. Saldana, 505 F.2d 628, 628 (5th Cir. 

1974). Thibodeaux points to no authority which required the district court to 

do more. Because Thibodeaux’s argument would require the extension or 

modification of precedent, any error was not plain or obvious. See GarciaGonzalez, 714 F.3d at 318; Evans, 587 F.3d at 671. 

Moreover, Thibodeaux has not shown that his substantial rights were 

affected by demonstrating that, but for the district court’s purported error, he 

would not have pleaded guilty. See Dominguez Benitez, 542 U.S. at 83. The 

record shows that Thibodeaux was aware that the sentences for the § 924(c)(1) 

convictions must be imposed consecutively. Specifically, the plea agreement 

advised Thibodeaux of the applicable minimum and maximum sentences, 

including the requirement that the sentences be imposed consecutively. At his 

rearraignment, Thibodeaux acknowledged that he understood “every word, 

line, sentence, and paragraph” of the plea agreement. Such “[s]olemn 

declarations in open court carry a strong presumption of verity.” Blackledge v. 

Allison, 431 U.S. 63, 74 (1977). Any documents signed by the defendant at the 

time of the guilty plea are entitled to “great evidentiary weight.” United States 

 Case: 14-31277 Document: 00513093574 Page: 3 Date Filed: 06/25/2015
No. 14-31277

4

v. Abreo, 39 F.3d 29, 32 (5th Cir. 1994). In addition, Thibodeaux did not object 

to the PSR’s statement that the sentences must be imposed consecutively or 

object on this basis at sentencing. See United States v. Alvarado-Casas, 715 

F.3d 945, 954 (5th Cir. 2013). Finally, as noted previously, the district court 

advised Thibodeaux at rearraignment, twice, that with respect to the 

§ 924(c)(1) convictions, the sentences would be imposed consecutively to any 

other term of confinement.

AFFIRMED.

 Case: 14-31277 Document: 00513093574 Page: 4 Date Filed: 06/25/2015