MEMORANDUM **

Federal prisoner Jose Angel Torres-Guardado appeals the district court’s denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion. At issue is whether appellate counsel rendered ineffective assistance by failing to appeal the inadequate factual basis for Torres-Guardado’s Rule 11 guilty plea to the charge of conspiracy to distribute methamphetamine. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, and we affirm.

Analyzing Torres-Guardado’s ineffective assistance claim under Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984), we agree with the district court’s decision that Torres-Guar-dado has failed to demonstrate that his Sixth Amendment right to counsel was violated. Specifically, Torres-Guardado has not established that he suffered prejudice as a result of his counsel’s failure to appeal the inadequate factual basis for his guilty plea. 1 Documents produced by the *655 government in discovery show that Torres-Guardado purchased drugs from a co-conspirator in Denver. Torres-Guardado also admitted to the magistrate judge that he did not manufacture the drugs himself. Based on the entire record, Torres-Guar-dado has failed to show a reasonable probability that but for the alleged Rule 11 error he would not have entered the guilty plea. See United States v. Dominguez Benitez, 542 U.S. 74, 83, 124 S.Ct. 2333, 159 L.Ed.2d 157 (2004); United States v. Monzon, 429 F.3d 1268, 1271-72 (9th Cir. 2005).

AFFIRMED.