OPINION

Adelina Yardira-Garcia Vergara pled guilty to four counts of an indictment that resulted from her participation in a conspiracy to provide illegal aliens with fraudulent North Carolina driver’s licenses and other forms of identification. At sentencing, the district court enhanced GarciaVergara’s sentence pursuant to U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 2L2.1(b)(2)(C) (2001), for trafficking in 100 or more documents relating to naturalization, citizenship, or legal resident status; and pursuant to USSG § 3Bl.l(b), for *507 acting as a manager or supervisor of a criminal activity involving five or more participants. Garcia Vergara challenges the propriety of these enhancements on appeal. We affirm.

This court reviews a district court’s factual findings at sentencing for clear error and its related legal conclusions, including the application of the Sentencing Guidelines, de novo. United States v. Daughtrey, 874 F.2d 213, 217 (4th Cir. 1989). We conclude that the district court did not err by finding that Garcia-Vergara was a manager or supervisor within the conspiracy and that the conspiracy had over five people. See USSG § 3Bl.l(b). There was substantial evidence that Garcia-Vergara directed at least one other member of the conspiracy, and that she was responsible for managing the portion of the conspiracy relating to the purchase of fraudulent driver’s licenses. See USSG § 3B1.1, comment, (n.2).

As to the enhancement under USSG § 2L2.1(b)(2)(C), there was evidence that one of the conspirators was involved in producing 1000 fraudulent documents, which were reasonably foreseeable to Garcia-Vergara, and the evidence supported the inference that Garcia-Vergara herself was involved with 100 or more documents. Therefore, the district court did not err in overruling Garcia-Vergara’s objections to application of the enhancement.

We affirm Garcia-Vergara’s conviction and 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.