United States v. Slaughter ( 1998 )

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
of guilty from defendant-appellant Slaughter, the district court
*
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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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.
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 must 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, Slaughter has failed to demonstrate that the
district court abused its discretion in denying his successive
motions to withdraw his guilty plea.4 The record shows that
Slaughter’s plea was knowing and voluntary, and that adequate
2
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. United States v. Bounds, 943
F.2d 541, 543 (5th Cir. 1991).
2
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 court’s determination of his offense level was clearly
erroneous because it was based on information that lacked
sufficient indicia of reliability. The presentence report upon
which the district court relied at sentencing had a sound
evidentiary basis. The district court properly adopted its
findings.6
AFFIRMED.
5
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. United 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