MEMORANDUM **

William Mahan appeals his sentence arising from a conviction for three offenses related to his firearm possession and drug trafficking activities. The facts are known to the parties and need not be repeated here, except as necessary to explain our decision. 1

Mahan challenges the district court’s determination that a drug purchase occurring roughly a month before the drug transaction that led to his conviction was “relevant conduct” for sentencing purposes. See U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 1B1.3. Specifically, Mahan argues that the two transactions were not “part of the same course of conduct or common scheme or plan as the offense of conviction.” Id. § lB1.3(a)(2).

Mahan’s two drug transactions occurred within less than a month. Both were drug sales, and both transactions involved the same type of drug, methamphetamine. Given the similarity and proximity of these two transactions, we do not believe the *744 district court’s determination that they were part of the same course of conduct was clearly erroneous. Therefore, the district court’s sentencing decision is

AFFIRMED.