Court Opinion

ID: 9408149
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-07-11 18:01:21.009764+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:20:42.082882
License: Public Domain

Case: 21-50365         Document: 00516816060             Page: 1      Date Filed: 07/11/2023

              United States Court of Appeals
                   for the Fifth Circuit
                                                                                 United States Court of Appeals
                                                                                          Fifth Circuit

                                      ____________                                      FILED
                                                                                      July 11, 2023
                                        No. 21-50365                                  Lyle W. Cayce
                                      ____________                                         Clerk

   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.
Case: 21-50365      Document: 00516816060           Page: 2    Date Filed: 07/11/2023

                                     No. 21-50365

                                          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).

                                          2
Case: 21-50365         Document: 00516816060             Page: 3      Date Filed: 07/11/2023

                                          No. 21-50365

          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).

                                                3
Case: 21-50365      Document: 00516816060          Page: 4   Date Filed: 07/11/2023

                                    No. 21-50365

   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.

                                         4