USA v. Caldwell, No. 21-10509 (5th Cir. 2022)

Annotate this Case

Defendant entered a guilty plea to conspiracy to interfere with commerce by robbery under 18 U.S.C. Section 1951(a) and brandishing a firearm during a crime of violence under 18 U.S.C. Section 924(c). The conspiracy conviction served as the predicate crime of violence for the firearm offense.

Under the terms of the plea agreement, Defendant waived the right to challenge his conviction and sentence on direct appeal or through a collateral attack. However, following United States v. Davis, 139 S. Ct. 2319 (2019), Defendant brought a collateral attack on his firearm conviction under 28 U.S.C. Section 2255, claiming that notwithstanding his waiver, his conviction must be vacated because it was predicated on the residual clause held unconstitutional in Davis.

The Fifth Circuit held that Defendant's plea waiver was valid, and precluded collateral attack, citing Grzegorczyk v. United States, _ U.S. _ (2022) (Kavanaugh, J., respecting the denial of certiorari).

Download PDF

Case: 21-10509 Document: 00516384137 Page: 1 Date Filed: 07/06/2022 United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit FILED July 6, 2022 No. 21-10509 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk United States of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, versus Joshua Deunte Caldwell, Defendant—Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 3:19–CV–2879 Before Richman, Chief Judge, and Costa and Ho, Circuit Judges. Per Curiam: Joshua Deunte Caldwell and his co-conspirators executed an armed robbery of over $500,000 in jewelry from a store in Dallas. Caldwell pleaded guilty to conspiracy to interfere with commerce by robbery under 18 U.S.C. § 1951(a) and brandishing a firearm during a crime of violence under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c). His conspiracy charge served as the predicate “crime of violence” for the firearm conviction under the residual clause of § 924(c). Under the terms of his plea agreement, Caldwell waived the right to challenge his conviction and sentence, either on direct review or collateral attack. Case: 21-10509 Document: 00516384137 Page: 2 Date Filed: 07/06/2022 No. 21-10509 The district court sentenced Caldwell to consecutive prison terms for the two offenses. Caldwell did not appeal. Several years later, the Supreme Court struck down the residual clause of § 924(c) as unconstitutionally vague in United States v. Davis, 139 S. Ct. 2319 (2019). Relying on Davis, Caldwell brought this collateral attack on his firearm conviction under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. He argued that, notwithstanding his plea waiver, his § 924(c) conviction must be set aside because it was predicated on the residual clause held unconstitutional in Davis. 1 Caldwell does not dispute that he waived the right to bring a collateral challenge as part of his plea agreement. Yet the district court nevertheless granted relief, theorizing that his plea waiver did not bar a collateral attack predicated on a subsequent change in law. As five Supreme Court justices recently reaffirmed, however, plea waivers such as the one entered here “preclude[] any argument based on the new caselaw.” Grzegorczyk v. United States, _ U.S. _, _ (2022) (Kavanaugh, J., respecting the denial of certiorari). See also Grzegorczyk v. United States, 997 F.3d 743 (7th Cir. 2021), cert. denied, _ U.S. _, _ (2022). So Caldwell’s plea waiver bars this collateral attack under § 2255. Accordingly, we reverse. 1 Caldwell’s co-defendants were convicted under § 924(c) based on an underlying crime of violence that remains valid even after Davis—namely, robbery under § 1951(a), as opposed to merely a conspiracy to commit robbery. The government notes that Caldwell admitted to facts in his plea agreement that would have supported that same robbery predicate being charged in his case as well. 2

Primary Holding

The Fifth Circuit reversed the district court, finding that Defendant's agreement not to pursue a collateral attack on his conviction was binding in light of the Supreme Court's denial of certiorari in Grzegorczyk v. United States, _ U.S. _ (2022).

Disclaimer: Justia Annotations is a forum for attorneys to summarize, comment on, and analyze case law published on our site. Justia makes no guarantees or warranties that the annotations are accurate or reflect the current state of law, and no annotation is intended to be, nor should it be construed as, legal advice. Contacting Justia or any attorney through this site, via web form, email, or otherwise, does not create an attorney-client relationship.

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.