The Honorable William G. Cambridge, Chief Judge, United States Distric t 1 Court for the District of Nebraska. United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________ No. 97-4287

___________ United States of America, * * Appellee, * * Appeal from the United States v. * District Court for the * District of Nebraska. Kirsten Meyer, * [UNPUBLISHED] * Appellant. *

___________ Submitted: March 12, 1998 Filed: March 19, 1998

___________ Before BOWMAN, WOLLMAN, and MORRIS SHEPPARD ARNOLD, Circui t Judges.

___________ PER CURIAM. Kirsten Meyer appeals the 9-month sente nce imposed by the district court after 1 she pleaded gui lty to conspiring to use counterfeit access card devices, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 371 and 1029(a)(1). We affirm.-2-

Forrevers al, Meyer first argues that the district court erred in assessing tw o criminalhistory points pursuant to U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 4A1.1(d ) (1997) because she commi tted the instant offense while under a three-year sentence of probation for a prior conviction of driving under the influence (DUI). Specifically , Meyer contends that she received a three-month sentence for the DUI conviction and thus was not serving the sentence when she committed the instant offense.
We conclu de that the district court did not err in assessing the two crimina l histo ry points. At sentencing, the government introduced a certified copy of th e probation order showing the term was three years, and Meyer & s petition to enter a guilty pl ea to the DUI charge, in which she acknowledged that she had been promised three years pro bation. See United States v. Larson , 110 F.3d 620, 627 (8th Cir. 1997 ) (district court & s interpretation of Guidelines is reviewed de novo and its factual findings reviewed for clear error); United States v. Khang , 904 F.2d 1219, 1222 (8th Cir. 1990) (government bears burden to establish facts justifying enhancement); cf. United States v. A banatha , 999 F.2d 1246, 1250-51 (8th Cir. 1993) (court did not clearly err i n enhan cing criminal history because defendant was on probation when instant offens e was committed based on certified copy of conviction which show ed defendant had been plac edon probation for 5 years introduced by government, even though defendant & s mother testified defendant & s probation had been reduced to 3 years), cert. denied , 511 U.S. 1035 (1994).
Me yer also argues that the district court erred in failing to depart further than it did after granting the government & s downward-depa rture motion. We decline to review this challenge, see United States v. McCarthy , 97 F.3d 1562, 1577 (8th Cir. 1996 ) (extent of downward departure is unreviewable), cert. denied , 117 S . Ct. 1011 and 1284 (1997), and we note Meyer & s argument that she should have received the same sentence as her co-defendant is not persuasive, see United St ates v. Womack , 985 F.2d 395, 400 (8th Cir.) (shorter sentence of co-defendant is not basis to invalidate sentence-3-

of defendant; c laim that district court erred in failing to depart to degree it did in co

defendant & s case is just another way of raising issue of extent of depar ture), cert. denied , 510 U.S. 902 (1993). The judgment is affirmed. A true copy.
Attest: CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.