v. Hernandez-Castro, 473 F.3d 1004 (9th Cir.2007); United States v. Barrero, 425 F.3d 154 (2d Cir.2005)). The district court properly considered Barrera’s prior conviction and his probationary status at the time of the instant offense in calculating his criminal history score. See supra Part II.A. This calculation must precede any departures that may be granted under U.S.S.G. § 4A1.3(b)(3)(B) based on overstated criminal history. See U.S.S.G. § 501.2(a)(1). Barrera has more than two criminal history points; thus, he is ineligible for safety-valve relief. The district court could not have reduced Barrera’s criminal history score simply to make him eligible for safety-valve relief. Other circuits have reached the same conclusion. See United States v. Hunt, 503 F.3d 34, 37 (1 st Cir.2007) (<HOLDING>); see also Barrero, 425 F.3d at 157 (holding
holding that we may not review a district courts refusal to grant a downward departure unless the court mistakenly believed that it lacked the authority to grant such a departure holding that the district courts refusal to grant a downward departure was discretionary and not because it believed it lacked the authority to depart where the court assessed the facts of the case and concluded that the departure requested does not seem  to have a basis holding that the district court had the discretion to grant a downward departure for postsentence rehabilitation holding that the plain language of the guidelines precludes appellant from receiving the benefit of the safety valve regardless of whether the district court wanted to grant a downward departure because appellant had two criminal history points holding that district court had authority to grant section 5k20 downward departure despite governments opposition