Donald Oscar Hayes appeals the district court order denying his motion to dismiss the indictment because it violated his protection against double jeopardy. We review the district court’s factual findings for clear error and the conclusions of law de novo. United States v. Green, 139 F.3d 1002, 1004 (4th Cir. 1998). We find that the district court did not err by finding that there were two separate agreements to distribute marijuana in Pennsylvania. See United States v. Ragins, 840 F.2d 1184, 1190 (4th Cir. 1988); United States v. MacDougall, 790 F.2d 1135, 1144-46 (4th Cir. 1986). Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order. 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.