United States Court of Appeals
                             FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT
                                      ___________

                                      No. 01-2812
                                      ___________

United States of America,                  *
                                           *
               Appellee,                   * Appeal from the United States
                                           * District Court for the
      v.                                   * Eastern District of Missouri.
                                           *
Laura Keevan,1                             * [UNPUBLISHED]
                                           *
               Appellant.                  *
                                      ___________

                                Submitted: February 13, 2002
                                   Filed: February 28, 2002
                                    ___________

Before WOLLMAN, RICHARD S. ARNOLD and BYE, Circuit Judges.
                         ___________

PER CURIAM.

       The district court2 sentenced Laura Keeven to 41 months imprisonment after
she pleaded guilty to being a felon in possession of a firearm, 18 U.S.C. § 922(g). A
Missouri trial judge later sentenced Keeven to serve five years in prison for a
weapon-flourishing offense arising from the same conduct as the § 922(g) charge.
In this appeal, Keeven contends the district court failed to account for her state


      1
          Appellant spells her last name “Keeven” in her brief, a usage we adopt herein.
      2
       The Honorable Stephen N. Limbaugh, United States District Judge for the
Eastern District of Missouri.
sentence in meting out federal punishment. She directs us to U.S.S.G. § 5G1.3(b),
which requires a district court to run a sentence concurrent to an as-yet “undischarged
term of imprisonment” imposed in state or federal court. Keeven suggests the district
court should have run her 41-month federal sentence concurrent to, rather than
consecutive to, the five-year sentence imposed in state court.

       We find two fatal flaws in Keeven’s argument. First, § 5G1.3(b) did not apply
because Keeven was not serving an “undischarged term of imprisonment” from the
state court when the district court sentenced her. United States v. Mun, 

,
413 (9th Cir. 1994) (“At the time the federal court sentenced Mun he was not serving
another sentence. The state sentence was imposed after the federal sentence.
Therefore, § 5G1.3 did not require the district court to alter its sentence to make it run
concurrently with the state sentence.”); accord United States v. Otto, 

,
418 (8th Cir. 1999); United States v. Brewer, 

, 1319 & n.3 (8th Cir.
1994). Second, we have held that “a district court may impose a federal sentence to
be served consecutively to a yet-to-be-imposed state sentence.” United States v.
Mayotte, 

, 798-99 (8th Cir. 2001) (per curiam); see United States v.
Robinson, 

, 566 (8th Cir. 2000).

      We therefore affirm the sentence imposed by the district court.

      A true copy.

             Attest:

                 CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.




                                           -2-