Robert William Symonds appeals the sentence imposed by the district court 2 following his guilty plea to one count of knowingly and intentionally manufacturing and attempting to manufacture five grams or more of actual methamphetаmine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) and 841(b)(l)(B)(vii). We affirm.
I.
Symonds began using methamphetamine in late 1997. In the summer of 1998, Symonds began obtaining methamphetamine from Ronald Titlbach. Symonds eventually allowed Titlbach and others to manufacture methamphetamine in Sy-monds’ garage in exchange for giving him small user quantities of methamphetamine. Symonds was present on a couple of these occasions when methamphetamine was manufactured. On another four or five occasiоns, Symonds learned after the fact that methamphetamine had been made in his garage, and he found user quantities that had been left for him. At some point in time, Symonds told Titlbach to stop using his garage to manufacture methamphetaminе. Titlbach did not stop using his garage, and Symonds continued to receive methamphetamine from Titlbach. Sy-monds also оbtained small quantities of methamphetamine from other individuals in exchange for making automotive repairs. Symonds was indicted on Novem *936 ber 19, 1999, and pleaded guilty to the offense charged in the indictment on June 1, 2000. He was sentenced to 78 months of imprisonment. Symonds appeals the district court’s drug quantity determination and assessment of criminal history points.
II.
Bеcause we are convinced that the government is incorrect in its assertion that Symonds’ challenge to drug quantity is unreviewable, we proceed to review the merits of this issue. We review the district court’s drug quantity determination for clear error.
United States v. Lawrence,
The district court’s drug quantity determination was based on Symonds’ own admissions. The district court relied on the drug quantity ranges which Symonds stipulated to prior to sentenсing. The district court used the most conservative interpretation of Symonds’ estimation, as requested by defense cоunsel at the sentencing hearing. Symonds presented to the district court no other evidence that his estimates werе unreliable, except for the fact that he was a methamphetamine addict. The district court’s reliancе on Symonds’ own estimates was not clearly erroneous, and its conclusion that Symonds’ drug quantity estimates were crediblе is virtually unreviewable on appeal.
See United States v. Causor-Serrato,
We are not persuaded by Symonds’ assertion that the district court should not have inсluded the quantities of methamphetamine that were produced without his advance knowledge or after he tоld Titlbach to stop using his garage. Although Symonds did not personally assist in the manufacturing of the methamphetamine and did not know the particular times when it was made, Symonds can still be held responsible for the quantities produced which were reasonably foreseeable to him.
See United States v. Delpit,
Symonds also challenges the district court’s assessment of his criminal history because the district court assigned him two criminal history points for each of three theft convictions. Symonds asserts that he should have received a total of only two criminal history points for all three theft convictions. We rеview the district court’s determination of whether
*937
the government has proven that a defendant’s prior crimes are related or not under the clearly erroneous standard.
United States v. Bartolotta,
III.
For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the judgment of the district court.
Notes
. The Honorable Michael J. Melloy, United States District Judge for the Northern District of Iowa.