* Pursuant to 5 T H C IR

. 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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. CORRECTED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

For the Fifth Circuit

No. 97-40561

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

VERSUS

DONIEL SLAUGHTER,

Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court

For the Eastern District of Texas

(6:95-CR-36-31)

March 17, 1998

Before WISDOM, DUHÉ, and BARKSDALE, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

A federal grand jury returned a sixty-seven count indictment

against Doniel Slaughter and forty-five codefendants, charging them

with numerous narcotics-related offenses. After accepting a plea

o f guilty from defendant-appellant Slaughter, the district court2 United States v. Faubion

, 19 F.3d 226, 228 (5th Cir. 1994).

3 Strickland v. Washington , 466 U.S. 668, 687 (1984).

4 We review the denial of a defendant’s motion to withdraw his

guilty plea for abuse of discretion. U nited States v. Bounds

, 943

F.2d 541, 543 (5th Cir. 1991).

2 sentenced him to a 240-month term of imprisonment. On direct

appeal, Slaughter alleges three assignments of error: (1) he

received ineffective assistance of counsel; (2) the district court

abused its discretion by denying his successive motions to withdraw

his guilty plea; and (3) the district court clearly erred in

calculating his sentence. None of these contentions has merit. We

affirm.

Whether counsel rendered constitutionally-adequate assistance

is a mixed question of law and fact that we review de novo

. 2 To

prevail on an ineffective assistance claim, Slaughter mus t prove

that counsel’s performance was both deficient and prejudicial to

him. 3 A thorough examination of the record shows that counsel

rendered adequate assistance to Slaughter during every phase of the

prosecution. Furthermore, even assuming that counsel’s performance

was deficient, Slaughter has failed to make the requisite showing

that he has suffered prejudice.

Likewise, Sla ughter has failed to demonstrate that the

district court abused i ts discretion in denying his successive

motions to withdraw his gui lty plea. 4 The record shows that

Slaughter’s plea was knowing and voluntary, and that adequate5 Among the seven factors that we consider in evaluating the

district court’s denial of a motion to withdraw a guilty plea are

(1) whether the plea was knowing and voluntary, and (2) whether the

defendant received adequate assistance from counsel at the time he

or she entered the plea. U nited States v. Thomas

, 13 F.3d 151,

152-53 & n. 4 (5th Cir. 1994).

6 See United States v. Vital

, 68 F.3d 114, 120 (5th Cir.

1995).

3 assistance of counsel was available to him at the time he entered

his plea. 5

Finally, we find no merit to Slaughter’s contention that the

district cou rt’s determination of his offense level was clearly

erroneous because it was based on information that lacked

sufficient indici a of reliability. The presentence report upon

which the district co urt relied at sentencing had a sound

e videntiary basis. The district court properly adopted its

findings. 6

AFFIRMED.