David Lynch pled guilty to aiding and abetting in the manufacturing. of five grams or more of methamphetamine, in *300 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