Vacated by Supreme Court, January 24, 2005
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 03-4926
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
DAVID LYNCH,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern
District of West Virginia, at Elkins. Robert E. Maxwell, Senior
District Judge. (CR-01-12)
Submitted: May 19, 2004 Decided: June 22, 2004
Before WIDENER, LUTTIG, and KING, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
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.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
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
- 2 -
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
- 3 -