Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. David LYNCH, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2004-06-22
Citations: 102 F. App'x 299
Docket Number: No. 03-4926
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. David LYNCH, Defendant—Appellant.
Judges: Before WIDENER, LUTTIG, and KING, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 102
Pages: 299–300

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. David LYNCH, Defendant—Appellant.
No. 03-4926.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted May 19, 2004.
Decided June 22, 2004.
James R. Fox, Farmer, Cline & Arnold, PLLC, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellant. Thomas E. Johnston, United States Attorney, Stephen D. Warner, Assistant United States Attorney, Elkins, West Virginia, for Appellee.
Before WIDENER, LUTTIG, and KING, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
David Lynch pled guilty to aiding and abetting in the manufacturing. of five grams or more of methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) and 841(b)(1)(B) (2000). He was sentenced to 365 months in prison. We affirm.
Lynch does not challenge his conviction, but argues that the district court erred in certain findings that formed the basis of his sentence under the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual (2002). These facts involve the circumstances under which Lynch was helping to manufacture methamphetamine, the amount of methamphetamine involved, and his prior criminal history. Lynch asserts the district court erred in finding: (1) that the manufacturing conditions posed a risk of harm to human life or the environment under USSG § 2D1.1(b)(5)(B); (2) that Lynch was responsible for 316.5 grams of methamphetamine; and (3) that Lynch qualified as a "career offender" under USSG § 4B1.1 due to his prior drug convictions.
This court reviews a district court's factual findings for clear error and its application of the Guidelines de novo. United States v. Daughtrey, 874 F.2d 213, 217 (4th Cir.1989). We have thoroughly reviewed the submissions of the parties in this matter and the district court's sentencing decision and conclude that the court did not commit reversible error in determining Lynch's sentence under the Guidelines. We therefore affirm Lynch's sentence. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED